HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda_HARC_10.08.2020Notice of Meeting for the
Historic and Architectural Rev iew Commission
of the City of Georgetown
October 8, 2020 at 6:00 P M
at Teleconference
T he C ity of G eorgetown is committed to compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). If you
require as s is tance in partic ipating at a public meeting due to a disability, as defined under the ADA, reas onable
as s is tance, adaptations , or ac commodations will be provided upon request. P leas e c ontact the C ity S ec retary's
O ffic e, at leas t three (3) days prior to the sc heduled meeting date, at (512) 930-3652 or C ity Hall at 808 Martin
Luther King Jr. S treet, G eorgetown, T X 78626 for additional information; T T Y users route through R elay
Texas at 711.
The r egular me eti ng wil l conve ne at 6:00pm on O ctober 8, 2020 via
te le confe re nc e. To participate , ple ase c opy and paste the we blink into your
browse r:
Weblink: https://bit.ly/3c 2 C Q U g
Webinar I D: 985-7521-8377
P assword: 131373
To participate by phone:
Call in numbe rs: +1(301)715-8592 or (Toll F r ee ) 888-475-4499
P assword: 131373
Citizen comme nts are acc epted in thr ee differ ent for mats:
1. Submit written comme nts to pl anning@geor getown.or g by 5:00p.m. on the
date of the mee ting and the Re cor ding S ec re tary will r e ad your c omments
into the r ec ording during the item that is being discussed.
2. L og onto the me e ting at the link above and "r aise your hand" dur ing the
item
3. Use your home /mobile phone to call the toll-fre e numbe r
To join a Zoom mee ting, c li ck on the l ink pr ovi de d and join as an attende e.
You wil l be asked to e nte r your name and e mail addr ess (this is so we c an
ide ntify you whe n you are c all e d upon). To spe ak on an ite m, c li ck on the
"R aise your H and" option at the bottom of the Zoom me eti ng webpage onc e
that i tem has opened. Whe n you ar e cal le d upon by the R e cor di ng Se cr etar y,
your de vi ce wil l be re mote ly un-mute d by the Administr ator and you may
spe ak for thre e minute s. P l e ase state your name c le arl y, and whe n your time
is over, your de vice will be muted again.
Use of pr ofanity, thr eate ning language, slande rous r emarks or thr eats of
Page 1 of 116
harm are not allowed and wil l re sult i n you be ing imme di atel y r emove d fr om
the mee ting.
Regular Session
(T his R egular S es s ion may, at any time, be rec es s ed to c onvene an Exec utive S es s ion for any purpose
authorized by the O pen Meetings Act, Texas G overnment C ode 551.)
A Discussion on how the H istoric and Architectural Review Commission virtual conference will be conducted,
to include options for public comments and how the public may address the Commission -- Sofia Nelson,
C N U -A, P lanning Director
B T he His toric and Architec tural R eview C ommis s ion, appointed by the Mayor and the C ity C ouncil, is
respons ible for hearing and taking final ac tion on applic ations , by is s uing C ertific ates of Appropriatenes s
based upon the C ity C ounc il adopted Downtown Design G uidelines and Unified Development C ode.
Welcome and Meeting Procedures:
· S taff P resentation
· Applicant P res entation (Limited to ten minutes unles s stated otherwise by the C ommission.)
· Q uestions from C ommission to S taff and Applicant
· C omments from C itizens*
· Applicant R es ponse
· C ommission Deliberative P rocess
· C ommission Action
* O nce s taff and the ap p licant have ad d res s ed q ues tio ns from the C o mmis s io ners , the C hair o f the
C ommission will open the pub lic hearing. T he c hair will ask if anyo ne would like to s peak. To speak, clic k
on the "R ais e Your Hand " optio n at the b o tto m of the Zoom meeting web p age. Yo ur d evic e will be
remotely un-muted and you may s p eak for three minutes . P leas e s tate yo ur name and address clearly. A
speaker may allot their time to another s p eaker for a maximum of 6 minutes . If a memb er of the
public wis hes to allot their time to ano ther s peaker, they may d o s o when their name is called by the C hair.
P lease remember that all comments and questions mus t b e addressed to the C o mmis s io n, and p leas e be
patient while we o rganize the s p eakers d uring the pub lic hearing portion. W hen yo ur time is over, your
device will be muted again.
•After everyo ne who has asked to speak has spoken, the C hair will clos e the pub lic hearing and p ro vide a
few minutes of rebuttal time to the applic ant if they s o c hoose.
P ublic Wishing to Address the B oard
O n a s ubjec t that is posted on this agenda: P lease fill out a speaker regis tration form whic h can be found at the
Board meeting. C learly print your name, the letter of the item on which you wish to speak, and pres ent it to the
S taff Liais on, preferably prior to the start of the meeting. You will be c alled forward to speak when the Board
cons iders that item.
O n a s ubjec t not posted on the agenda: P ersons may add an item to a future Board agenda by filing a written
request with the S taff Liais on no later than one week prior to the Board meeting. T he reques t must include the
Page 2 of 116
s peaker's name and the spec ific topic to be addres s ed with sufficient information to inform the board and the
public . F or Board Liaison c ontact information, pleas e logon to
http://government.georgetown.org/c ategory/boards -commissions /.
C At the time of posting, no pers ons had s igned up to address the Board.
L egislativ e Regular Agenda
D C ons ideration and possible action to approve the minutes from the S eptember 24, 2020 regular meeting of
the His toric and Architec tural R eview C ommis s ion. - Mirna G arcia, Management Analys t
E P ublic Hearing and Possible Action on a reques t for a Certificate of Appropriateness for new
building c onstruc tion (infill development) at the property loc ated at 405 S . Aus tin Avenue, bearing the legal
desc ription 0.7434 acres, being Lot 9, R eplat of Bloc k 24, C ity of G eorgetown. – Britin Bostick,
Downtown & Historic P lanner
F P ublic Hearing and Possible Action on a reques t for a Certificate of Appropriateness (C O A) for a
4'-0" s etbac k modification to the required 6' side s etbac k to allow a c arport s tructure 2'-0" from the side
(south) property line and an addition that c reates a new, or adds to an existing street-fac ing faç ade at the
property located at 1505 O live S treet, bearing the legal desc ription 0.345 ac res , being part of Bloc k 40 of
the S nyder Addition. - Britin Bos tic k, Downtown & Historic P lanner
G Updates , C ommis s ioner questions, and c omments . - S ofia Nels on, P lanning Director
Adjournment
Ce rtificate of Posting
I, R obyn Densmore, C ity S ecretary for the C ity of G eorgetown, Texas, do hereby c ertify that this Notic e of
Meeting was posted at C ity Hall, 808 Martin Luther King Jr. S treet, G eorgetown, T X 78626, a plac e readily
acc es s ible to the general public as required by law, on the _____ day of _________________, 2020, at
__________, and remained s o posted for at leas t 72 c ontinuous hours prec eding the s cheduled time of said
meeting.
__________________________________
R obyn Dens more, C ity S ec retary
Page 3 of 116
City of Georgetown, Texas
Historic and Architectural Review
October 8, 2020
S UB J E C T:
C onsideration and pos s ible ac tion to approve the minutes from the S eptember 24, 2020 regular meeting of
the Historic and Arc hitectural R eview C ommission. - Mirna G arc ia, Management Analyst
IT E M S UMMARY:
F IN AN C IAL IMPAC T:
.
S UB MIT T E D B Y:
Mirna G arcia, Management Analys t
AT TAC H ME N T S:
Description Type
minutes Backup Material
Page 4 of 116
Historic and Architectural Review Commission Page 1 of 3
Meeting: September 24, 2020
City of Georgetown, Texas
Historic and Architectural Review Commission
Minutes
September 24, 2020 at 6:00 p.m.
Teleconference Meeting: https://bit.ly/2FBeXXT
The regular meeting convened at 6:00PM on September 24, 2020 via teleconference at:
https://bit.ly/2FBeXXT
To participate by phone: Call in number: (346)248-7799, (669)900-6833, (253)215-8782, (929)205-
6099 Webinar ID#: 986-0859-0841 Password: 357876
Public Comment was allowed via the conference call number or the “ask a question” function on
the video conference option; no in-person input was allowed.
Members present: Amanda Parr, Chair; Art Browner, Steve Johnston, Terry Asendorf-Hyde,
Catherine Morales; Pam Mitchell
Members absent: Faustine Curry, Robert McCabe, Karalei Nunn
Staff present: Britin Bostick, Historic Planner; Mirna Garcia, Management Analyst; Nat Waggoner,
Long Range Planning Manager; Sofia Nelson, Planning Director
Call to order by Commissioner Parr at 6:01 pm.
Regular Session
(This Regular Session may, at any time, be recessed to convene an Executive Session for any
purpose authorized by the Open Meetings Act, Texas Government Code 551.)
A. Discussion on how the Historic and Architectural Review Commission virtual conference will
be conducted, to include options for public comments and how the public may address the
Commission. – Sofia Nelson, CNU-A, Planning Director
B. The Historic and Architectural Review Commission, appointed by the Mayor and the City
Council, is responsible for hearing and taking final action on applications, by issuing
Certificates of Appropriateness based upon the City Council adopted Downtown Design
Guidelines and Unified Development Code.
Welcome and Meeting Procedures:
- Staff Presentation
- Applicant Presentation (Limited to ten minutes unless stated otherwise by the Commission.)
- Questions from Commission to Staff and Applicant
- Comments from Citizens*
- Applicant Response
- Commission Deliberative Process
- Commission Action
*Once staff and the applicant have addressed questions from the Commissioners, the
Chair of the Commission will open the public hearing. If a member of the public would
Page 5 of 116
Historic and Architectural Review Commission Page 2 of 3
Meeting: September 24, 2020
like to provide comments on the agenda item under discussion, the chair will ask if
anyone would like to speak. To speak, please identify yourself by either
entering your name, address and item number on the Q/A chat on your
screen. When your name is called you will have up to 3 minutes. A speaker may allot
their time to another speaker for a maximum of 6 minutes. If a member of the
public wished to allot their time to another speaker, they may do so when their name is
called by the Chair. Please remember that all comments and qu estions must be
addressed to the Commission, and please be patient while we organize the speakers
during the public hearing portion. After everyone who has asked to speak has
spoken, the Chair will close the public hearing and provide a few minutes of rebuttal
time to the applicant if they so choose.
On a subject not posted on the agenda: Persons may add an item to a future Board
agenda by filing a written request with the Staff Liaison no later than one week prior to
the Board meeting. The request must include the speaker's name and the specific topic to
be addressed with sufficient information to inform the board and the public. For Board
Liaison contact information, please logon
to http://government.georgetown.org/category/boards-commissions/.
Public Wishing to Address the Board
C. At the time of posting, no persons had signed up to address the Board.
Legislative Regular Agenda
D. Consideration and possible action to approve the minutes from the September 10, 2020 regular
meeting of the Historic and Architectural Review Commission. - Mirna Garcia, Management
Analyst
Motion to approve Item C by Commissioner Morales. Second by Commissioner Johnston.
Approved (5-0).
E. Conceptual review of a request for a Certificate of Appropriateness for new building
construction (infill development) at the property located at 405 S. Austin Avenue, bearing the
legal description 0.7434 acres, being Lot 9, Replat of Block 24, City of Georgetown.
Staff report presented by Bostick. The applicant is requesting HARC approval of a new, three
story bank and office with a drive-thru located on the east side of the building. The new
building is proposed to be a total of 22,702 sq. ft., with a 40’ building height as defined by the
Unified Development Code (UDC) and a 47’ parapet height. The proposed exterior materials
are cast stone or cut limestone and stucco, with dark aluminum frame windows and non -
reflective glazing. The proposed design includes decorative stucco details at the first an d top
floors, as well as stone and stucco details to highlight the building entrances on the north and
south elevations and the center section of the Austin Avenue (west) façade. Signage is not
Page 6 of 116
Historic and Architectural Review Commission Page 3 of 3
Meeting: September 24, 2020
proposed as part of this application, but the submitted plans show building signage areas on
each of the three street facades. The highest point of the roof parapet at 49’ is proposed for the
cornice details in the center of the street-facing facades, while the parapet surrounding the roof
(“mid parapet”) is 47’ in height. This parapet acts to screen rooftop mechanical equipment from
view, while the “low parapet” is a decorative element.
There were questions regarding the drive-thru and vehicle access by the Commission. Bostick
provided an explanation of how customers would access the drive-thru from Austin Avenue.
There was also discussion about impact to the courthouse view, and further clarification was
sought regarding the exemption process. Bostick explained that this is one of additional
applications submitted, one which includes a Site Development Plan. The Site Development
Plan will help address other issues such as drainage and impervious cover. The courthouse
zone protection is a special overlay that is implemented to consider the impact the project will
have on the view of the courthouse from Austin Avenue and IH-35. The evaluation process is
done through the Administrative Exception process where staff determine whether the
proposed height of the project will block the courthouse view.
The Commission also discussed the size of the windows for the proposed project and asked if
the applicant will reconsider windows that are more similar to others in the area for a more
historic feel, with a proportion of taller than wide. The Commission asked if the Austin Ave.
street façade could have more variation or consideration toward pedestrians.
Bostick also requested feedback from the Commission, and asked if th ere is anything else they
would like to see for the next time this item is presented. Commissioner Morales asked that for
items that partially comply, staff continue to provide enough explanation and data to support
why the criteria partially comply.
Chair Parr also requested to see what materials will be used and how, for the next presentation
of this project.
Whitney Koch, the project’s architect, provided an explanation and reviewed the materials that
will be used and provided examples for the Commission.
F. Updates, Commission questions, and comments. – Sofia Nelson, Planning Director
Staff provided updates on the Design Guidelines update project.
Adjournment
Motion to adjourn by Commissioner Morales. Second by Commissioner Johnston.
Meeting adjourned at 7:47 pm
________________________________ _________________________________
Approved, Amanda Parr, Chair Attest, Terri Asendorf-Hyde, Secretary
Page 7 of 116
City of Georgetown, Texas
Historic and Architectural Review
October 8, 2020
S UB J E C T:
Public Hearing and P ossible Action on a request for a Certificate of Appropriateness for new
building cons truction (infill development) at the property located at 405 S . Austin Avenue, bearing the legal
des cription 0.7434 ac res , being Lot 9, R eplat of Block 24, C ity of G eorgetown. – Britin Bos tic k,
Downtown & His toric P lanner
IT E M S UMMARY:
Overview of Applicant's Request
T he applic ant is reques ting HAR C ap p ro val of a new, three sto ry b ank and o ffic e with a drive-thru loc ated
on the eas t s id e of the b uilding. T he new build ing is propos ed to b e a to tal o f 22,702 s q . ft., with a 40’ roof
height and a 47’ p arap et height. T he p ro p o s ed exterio r materials are c as t s tone or c ut limesto ne and s tucc o,
with d ark aluminum frame wind o ws and no n-reflec tive glazing. T he p ro p o s ed d es ign includ es decorative
s tucc o details at the first and to p floors , as well as s tone and s tucc o details to highlight the building
entranc es o n the no rth and s outh elevations and the c enter s ec tio n o f the Aus tin Avenue (wes t) faç ade.
S ignage is not propos ed as p art of this ap p licatio n, but the s ubmitted plans s ho w build ing s ignage areas on
each of the three s treet facades. T he highes t point of the ro o f p arap et at 49’-6” is p ro p o s ed fo r the cornice
details in the c enter of the street-fac ing fac ad es , while the p arap et s urrounding the roof (“mid p arap et”) is
47’ in height. T his parapet ac ts to s creen rooftop mechanic al eq uipment fro m view, while the “lo w parapet”
is a decorative element.
S taff Recommendation
Based on the find ings lis ted ab o ve, s taff recommends AP P R O VAL W I T H C O N D I T I O N S of the
request. S taff recommends that the conditions of the approval are:
· T hat all three s treet-fac ing facades have a c o nsistent window d es ign on the first or gro und floor of
the b uilding, and that the windows o n the first o r gro und flo o r have p ro p o rtions cons is tent with traditional
s torefront wind o ws , o r as p ro p o s ed fo r the windows in the c enter p o rtion of the Austin Avenue faç ad e and
the 5th S treet and north fac ades .
· T hat the windows on the s econd and third flo o rs be c o ns is tent on all fo ur facades, and that the
windows have a greater height than wid th, with p ro p o rtions mo re c o ns is tent with trad itional up p er floor
windows.
· T hat HAR C b e p ro vided with ad d itional examp les o f the p ro p o s ed materials installed as reques ted
during the c onc eptual review.
Public Comment
As o f the d ate of this report, s taff has rec eived 1 written c o mment, which was provid ed to the applicant
and the C ommission during the C onc eptual R eview on 9/24/2020.
F IN AN C IAL IMPAC T:
None. T he applicant has paid the required application fees .
Page 8 of 116
S UB MIT T E D B Y:
Britin Bostick, Downtown & His toric P lanner
AT TAC H ME N T S:
Description Type
Exhibit 1 - Location Map Exhibit
Exhibit 2 - Letter of Intent Exhibit
Exhibit 3 - Plans & Specifications Exhibit
Exhibit 4 - Applicant Respons e to HARC Conceptual Review Exhibit
Staff Report Exhibit
Staff Pres entation Pres entation
Page 9 of 116
Location
2020-45-COA
Exhibit #1
E 6TH ST
E 5TH ST
E 4TH ST
E 3RD ST
FO
R
E
S
T
S
T
RO
C
K
S
T
S A
U
S
T
I
N
A
V
E
S M
Y
R
T
L
E
S
T
S M
A
I
N
S
T
S C
H
U
R
C
H
S
T
W 3RD ST
W4THST
W 6TH ST
W5THST
0 200100
Feet
¯
Site
Parcels
Page 10 of 116
209 S. Llano St., Suite B Fredericksburg, TX 78624 t. 830.997.7024 F:830.212.4064 www.mustarddesign.net
August 17, 2020
City of Georgetown, Planning and Development Services
Historic and Architectural Review Commission- (CoA)
Regarding: R Bank Georgetown - Certificate of Appropriateness
405 S. Austin Avenue, Georgetown, TX
Owner Information: Carr Ryan Re 4, LLC
5121 Bee Cave Road, Suite 207
Austin, TX 78746
Scott Carr
Email: scott@carrdevelopment.com
Project Summary:
We are proposing the design of a new three story office building on the town lot located at the 405
S. Austin Avenue. The lot is undeveloped, has some existing trees and is bordered by 4th Street on
the north, Austin Avenue on the west, 5th Street on the south and a residential townhouse
development to the east via a shared access easement.
The design vision for the new three-story building is that of a traditional bank office building that
includes cut stone at street level, with decorative cornices and steel-look windows. The entries will
be recessed into the building to provide covered entry for the patrons and tenants and located
facing 4th and 5th streets. A bank drive through will be provided off of the shared access easement
which also provided the primary entry and exit pathway on the site.
The first floor will be comprised primarily of a bank tenant and possible second small tenant while
the 2nd and 3rd floors will be private office lease space.
The first floor and central entry elements are set to resemble traditional load-bearing masonry in a
style reminiscent of historic bank/governmental buildings. These areas will be clad in a cut
limestone veneer and be accented with decorative cornices. The second and third floor areas will
still be reflective of traditional building styles utilizing a stucco veneer and decorative cornices. The
upper parapets are stepped to signal a hierarchy of entry and accent the central entry elements.
The material selection of the building will coordinate well with existing traditional buildings
throughout downtown and provides for a similar aesthetic with stone and stucco veneers and
steel-look window and door appearances. The scale of the building meets with the development
code guidelines.
Thank you for the opportunity to present our project for your review.
Whitney Koch, AIA, NCARB
Principal Architect
Texas Registered Architect #24419
Page 11 of 116
Page 12 of 116
736
737
738
739
7
4
1
7
3
9
741
741
7
3
4
742 743
742
742
743
7 4 3
744
746744
744
747
7
4
7
746
7
4
6
7 4 4
740
740
7
4
0
7
3
5
745
745
7
4
5
FO
T
T
GAS
GAS
GAS GAS GAS GAS GAS GAS GAS GAS GAS GAS GAS GAS GAS GAS GAS GASGASGASGASGASGASGASGASGASGASGAS
GAS
GAS
W
W
WWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W W
W W W
W
W
W
W
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
GAS
GAS
GAS
GAS
GAS
GAS
GAS
GAS
GAS
GAS GAS
SS
GAS GASGAS
N
8
8
°2
9
'2
5
"
E
5
9
.
9
8
'
BLOCK 24, LOT 9
0.74 ACRE
11 9 9
5
6
39 PARKING
SPACES ON-SITE
6 PARALLEL SPACES
AT STREET
LOT 3 LOT 4 LOT 5 LOT 6 LOT 7 LOT 8LOT 2LOT 1
EXISTING CHINABERRY
TREE TO BE REMOVED
EA
S
E
M
E
N
T
EA
S
E
M
E
N
T
PR
O
P
E
R
T
Y
L
I
N
E
N
8
8
°2
9
'0
8
"
E
5
9
.
9
6
'
N
8
7
°4
1
'2
7
"
E
1
4
.
5
4
'
PROPERTY LINE N 01°30'59" W 239.97'
PROPERTY LINE N 01°43'01" W 240.31'
PR
O
P
E
R
T
Y
L
I
N
E
S
8
8
°3
2
'4
9
"
W
1
3
5
.
3
2
'
W.
5
T
H
S
T
R
E
E
T
W.
4
T
H
S
T
R
E
E
T
S. AUSTIN AVENUE
EXISTING PECAN TREE TO BE
REMOVED AND MITIGATED,
REFER TO LANDSCAPE PLAN
PROPOSED
BUILDING
9'
-
0
"
T
Y
P
.
18' - 0"
5'
-
0
"
17
'
-
6
5
/
8
"
9'
-
0
"
8'
-
9
1
/
2
"
26' - 0"18' - 0"4' - 0"18' - 0"26' - 0"
PRIVATE OFFICE
3 STORIES
APPROX. 22,702 TOTAL SF
1ST FLR: 6,430 SF
2ND FLR: 8,136 SF
3RD FLR: 8,136 SF
DUMPSTER
EXISTING TRANSFORMER
AND ELECTRICAL
SERVICE TO REMAIN
EXISTING TYPE A
CROSSWALK
LANDSCAPE
LANDSCAPE
EXISTING
AMERICAN ELM
TREE TO REMAIN
EXISTING WHITE
MULBERRY TO BE
REMOVED
EXISTING HERITAGE
TREE TO REMAIN
EXISTING CONCRETE
DRIVE AISLE TO REMAIN
EXISTING PERMEABLE PAVER
DRIVE AISLE TO REMAIN
CONCRETE SIDEWALK
LA
N
D
S
C
A
P
E
LA
N
D
S
C
A
P
E
UTILITY
10' - 0"
PRIVATE DRIVE
25' - 0"
PROPOSED LEVEL III
SIDEWALK
PROPOSED LEVEL II
SIDEWALK
PROPOSED MODIFIED
TYPE B CROSSWALK
PROPOSED LEVEL III
SIDEWALK
LA
N
D
S
C
A
P
E
COMPACT
3
3 LANDSCAPE
LANDSCAPE
LANDSCAPE
LANDSCAPE
LANDSCAPE
PARALLEL PARKING
SPACES
PARALLEL PARKING
SPACES
COVERED PARKING,
CONCRETE
SECOND AND THIRD FLOOR BUILDING EXTENT,
OPEN BELOW FOR DRIVE THROUGH
CONCRETE THROUGHOUT
DRIVE AISLE, AND
PARKING STALLS
COMPACT
9' - 0"
9' - 0"
FIRE LANE
100'-0"
FIRE LANE
FIRE LANE
16' - 0"
18' - 0"
EXISTING TELEPHONE VAULT
5' - 6"
EXISTING RETAINING
WALL TO BE REMOVED
FIRE LANE
20' - 0"
FIRE LANE
20' - 0"
DIRECTIONAL SIGNAGE,
"DRIVE THROUGH"
MULTI-TENANT WALL
SIGN AT FACE OF
RETAINING WALL, TO BE
SUBMITTED SEPARATELY
PERMEABLE PAVERS
AT DRIP LINE
PROPOSED WAY-
FINDING SIGN
EXISTING STREET
SIGN
5' - 0"
WAY-FINDING
SIGNAGE
EXISTING
LIGHT POLE
18' - 0"4' - 4"14' - 0"26' - 0"
18' - 0"
RA
M
P
U
P
4' - 10"
PROPOSED
ACCESSIBLE RAMP
EXISTING WHITE
MULBERRY TO BE
REMOVED
STAND-UP CURB AND GUTTER
RIBBON CURB
STAND-UP CURB
AND GUTTER
MODULAR, CAST STONE OR
NATURAL STONE RETAINING WALL
W/ REINFORCED CAST-IN-PLACE
CONCRETE AS NEEDED
MANHOLE, REFER TO
CIVIL FOR ADDITIONAL
REQUIREMENTS
MODULAR, CAST STONE OR
NATURAL STONE RETAINING WALL
W/ REINFORCED CAST-IN-PLACE
CONCRETE AS NEEDED
EXISTING
STORM INLET
CROSS-WALK STRIPING
T
PROPOSED TRANSFORMER
& EQUIPMENT
MEMBRANE OR TPO ROOF
WITH INTERNAL DRAINS
18' - 6"
17' - 1"
LANDSCAPE
PARALLEL PARKING
SPACES
LANDSCAPE
PARALLEL PARKING
SPACE
ZONING:
ZONED:
PROPOSED USE:
MIN. ALLOWABLE LOT AREA:
TOTAL LOT AREA:
SETBACKS:
FRONT YARD:
STREET SIDE YARD:
INTERIOR SIDE YARD:
REAR SIDE YARD:
PARKING ANALYSIS: OFFICE BUILDING
3 STORY OFFICE BUILDING
22,702 SQFT / 500 GFA OFFICE = 45 PARKING SPACES REQUIRED PER CITY ORDINANCE
TOTAL REQUIRED:45 PARKING SPACES PER CITY ORDINANCE
TOTAL PROVIDED: 46 PARKING SPACES ON SITE
INCLUDING 2 ADA ACCESSIBLE SPACES
INCLUDING 6 PARALLEL SPACES ALONG 4TH AND 5TH STREETS
OWNER INFORMATION:
CARR RYAN RE 4, LLC
5121 BEE CAVE ROAD, SUITE 207
AUSTIN, TX 78746
LEGAL DESCRIPTION:
S8731 -GEORGETOWN, CITY OF BLK 24 (REPLAT),
BLOCK 24, Lot 9, ACRES 0.743
MU-DT
PRIVATE OFFICE BUILDING
NO MINIMUM REQUIRED
32,383 SQ FT (0.74 ACRES)
0 FT
0 FT
0 FT
0 FT
MAX ALLOWABLE IMPERVIOUS COVERAGE:
PROPOSED IMPERVIOUS COVERAGE:
BUILDING
PAVING / WALKS
PROPOSED PERVIOUS COVERAGE:
PERMEABLE PAVERS:
LANDSCAPE AREA:
*IMPERVIOUS CALCULATIONS ARE APPROXIMATE AT THIS PHASE
MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE BUILDING HEIGHT:
MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE OVERALL BUILDING HEIGHT:
PROPOSED BUILDING HEIGHT:
PROPOSED OVERALL BUILDING HEIGHT:
95% = (32,383 *.95) = 30,764 SF ALLOWABLE
PER GEORGETOWN UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE
91% (29,404 SF)
BUILDING 6,430 SQFT
PAVING / WALKS 22,974 SQFT
9% (2,980 SF)
PAVERS 994 SQFT
LANDSCAPE 1,986 SQFT
40' -0"
50' -0"
40'-0"TOP OF ROOF
49'-0" TOP OF HIGHEST PARAPET
SCALE:
mustard
D E S I G N
PRELIMINARY
THESE DRAWINGS ARE FOR INTERIM
REVIEW AND NOT FOR REGULATORY
APPROVAL, PERMITTING, OR
CONSTRUCTION.
WHITNEY KOCH
24419
a r c h i t e c t s 1" = 10'-0"
CONCEPTUAL SITE PLAN
R BANK
10.01.2020
NSITE PLAN
Page 13 of 116
FIRST FLOOR
0"
THIRD FLOOR T.O.P.
40' - 0"
SECOND FLOOR
18' - 0"
THIRD FLOOR
29' - 0"
LOW PARAPET
43' - 6"
MID PARAPET
47' - 0"
01
02
03
04
05
06
03
07
07
08
12
1303 14
MAX PARAPET
9' - 6"
MAX ROOF HEIGHT
40' - 0"
16
100' - 0"
35' - 0" 30' - 0"35' - 0"
HIGH PARAPET
49' - 6"
7' - 0"
FOUNDATION TYPE
FOUNDATION SHALL BE A BEAM STIFFENED SLAB ON GRADE FOUNDATION. INTEGRAL SPREAD FOOTERS WILL BE PROVIDED UNDER
COLUMN LOCATIONS. ALL FOUNDATION COMPONENTS WILL BE CONVENTIONALLY REINFORCED.
BUILDING ELEMENTS
REFER TO ELEVATIONS FOR COMPLIANCE WITH UDC SECTION 7.03.040
BUILDING ARTICULATION
ARTICULATION COMPLIES WITH UDC SECTION 7.03.050 BUILDING ARTICULATION AND ARCHITECTURAL FEATURES. REFERENCE
CALCULATIONS BELOW
HORIZONTAL ARTICULATION FOR FOOTPRINT
AVERAGE BUILDING HEIGHT = 40'-0"
AVERAGE BUILDING HEIGHT = 40'-0" x 3 = 120'-0", MAXIMUM LATERAL DISTANCE WITHOUT PERPENDICULAR OFFSET
VERTICAL ARTICULATION FOR ELEVATION
AVERAGE BUILDING HEIGHT = 40'-0"
AVERAGE BUILDING HEIGHT = 40'-0" x 3 = 120'-0", MAXIMUM LATERAL DISTANCE WITHOUT CHANGE IN VERTICAL ELEVATION
ARCHITECTURAL FEATURES
REFER TO THE ELEVATIONS FOR COMPLIANCE WITH UDC SECTION 7.03.050-D
ARCHITECTURAL COMPATIBILITY
THE BUILDING WILL COMPLY WITH UDC SECTION 7.03.060
ARCHITECTURAL PLAN NOTES
1. ALL SIGNAGE REQUIRES A SEPARATE APPLICATION AND APPROVAL FROM THE BUILDING INSPECTIONS DEPARTMENT, NO
SIGNAGE IS APPROVED WITH THE SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN OR HARC PLANS.
2. COLOR SELECTION IS NOT APPROVED WITH THE SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND MAY BE COUNTED TOWARD THE SIGNAGE
CALCULATION IF IT IS FOUND TO REFLECT COLOR THAT IS CONSIDERED SIGNAGE ACCORDING TO THE DEFINITION OF
SIGNAGE IN THE UDC
3. THIS SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN SHALL MEET ALL DESIGN STANDARDS FOR ARTICULATION, BUILDING DESIGN, BUILDING
MATERIALS AND ELEMENTS AND ARCHITECTURAL FEATURES OF SECTION 7.03 OF THE UDC.
4. ALL ROOF, WALL AND GROUND MOUNTED MECHANICAL AND ELECTRICAL EQUIPMENT MUST BE SCREENED IN
ACCORDANCE WITH UDC CHAPTER 8
SITE DEVELOPMENT NOTES
ELEVATION KEY NOTES
FIRST FLOOR
0"
THIRD FLOOR T.O.P.
40' - 0"
SECOND FLOOR
18' - 0"
THIRD FLOOR
29' - 0"
LOW PARAPET
43' - 6"
MID PARAPET
47' - 0"
01
02
03
04
06
03
07
07
05
14
15
40
0746.8
786.8
11
34' - 8"62' - 6"2' - 9"
100' - 0"
HIGH PARAPET
49' - 6"
7' - 0"
49795.8
SCALE:
mustard
D E S I G N
PRELIMINARY
THESE DRAWINGS ARE FOR INTERIM
REVIEW AND NOT FOR REGULATORY
APPROVAL, PERMITTING, OR
CONSTRUCTION.
WHITNEY KOCH
24419
a r c h i t e c t sAs indicated
CONCEPTUAL ELEVATIONS
R BANK
10.01.2020
SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"
AUSTIN AVENUE /
WEST ELEVATION
12 BACK LIT OR INTERNALLY ILLUMINATED BUILDING
SIGN, COLOR: BY TENANT, TO BE SUBMITTED
SEPARATELY
13 REINFORCED CMU DUMPSER ENCLOSURE W/STUCCO
FINISH TO MATCH BUILDING
14 STEEL FRAMED ACCESS DOOR WITH 1x4 STAINED
WOOD INFILL, FRAME TO BE PAINTED TO MATCH
BUILDING WINDOWS
15 ANODIZED DARK BRONZE OR BLACK DRIVE THROUGH
TELLER WINDOW
16 MODULAR, CAST STONE OR NATURAL STONE
RETAINING WALL W/REINFORCED CAST-IN-PLACE
CONRETE AS NEEDED
07 DARK BRONZE ANODIZED OR BLACK ALUMINUM CLAD
FIXED WINDOW WITH MIDDLE MULLION, AND LOW-E,
NON-REFLECTIVE COATING
08 DARK BRONZE ANODIZED OR BLACK ALUMINUM CLAD
FIXED WINDOW W/ TRANSOM, MULLIONS, AND LOW-E,
NON-REFLECTIVE COATING
09 DARK BRONZE ANODIZED OR BLACK ALUMINUM CLAD
DOOR W/ TRANSOM, AND LOW-E, NON-REFLECTIVE
COATING
10 BACK LIT OR INTERNALL ILLUMINATED BANK DRIVE
THROUGH SIGNS, TO BE SUBMITTED SEPARATELY
11 HOLLOW METAL DOOR & HOLLOW METAL FRAME;
PAINTED TO MATCH ADJACENT WALL SURFACE
01 12"x24" SMOOTH CAST STONE OR CUT LIMESTONE
VENEER. CREAM OR BUFF COLORED, OR SIMILAR
02 THREE COAT CEMENTITIOUS PORTLAND STUCCO ON
METAL LATH. JOINTS AS INDICATED ON ELEVATIONS.
03 STUCCO CORNICE BANDS WITH IMPLIED JOINTS TO
MIMIC CAST/CUT STONE, COLOR TO MATCH CAST
STONE VENEER.
04 STUCCO CORNICE BAND WITH IMPLIED JOINTS AND
PREFINISHED METAL PARAPET CAP, COLOR TO
MATCH CAST/CUT STONE VENEER.
05 24"x32" SMOOTH CAST STONE OR CUT LIMESTONE
VENEER PLYNTH. COLOR, TEXTURE AND JOINT
SPACING TO MATCH ADJACENT CAST/STONE VENEER.
06 STUCCO SILL WITH IMPLIED JOINTS, COLOR TO
MATCH CAST/ CUT STONE VENEER
SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"
EAST ELEVATION
Page 14 of 116
FIRST FLOOR
0"
THIRD FLOOR T.O.P.
40' - 0"
SECOND FLOOR
18' - 0"
THIRD FLOOR
29' - 0"
LOW PARAPET
43' - 6"
MID PARAPET
47' - 0"
01
02
03
04
06
07
07
08
12
13 03 09
05
29' - 8"22' - 11"20' - 0"22' - 11"11' - 8"
HIGH PARAPET
49' - 6"
95' - 6"
SECONDARY HEIGHT
41' - 6"
STUCCO COLOR
SHERWIN WILLIAMS: INCREDIBLE WHITE 7028 OR SIMILAR
TYPICAL COLOR FOR STUCCO
ELEVATION TAG: 02
RETAINING WALL
PRECAST RETAINING WALL BLOCK WITH CAP
COLOR SIMILAR TO CUT/CAST STONE VENEER
ELEVATION TAG: 16
METAL CLAD DOOR/WINDOW EXAMPLE
COLOR: DARK BRONZE ANODIZED OR BLACK
ELEVATION TAG: 07, 08, 09
CUT OR CAST STONE VENEER
IMAGE ABOVE REPRESENTS THE TYPICAL COLOR FOR
EITHER CAST OR CUT STONE VENEER
ELEVATION TAG: 01
CUT STONE VENEER EXAMPLE
PARKS CANADA FEDERAL BUILDING
CAST STONE VENEER EXAMPLE
AMERICAN STONECAST, LLC
STUCCO FINISH EXAMPLE WITH CORNICE BANDING
TEXTURE: WALL: SMOOTH TO FINE
BANDS: SMOOTH TO FINE
FIRST FLOOR
0"
THIRD FLOOR T.O.P.
40' - 0"
SECOND FLOOR
18' - 0"
THIRD FLOOR
29' - 0"
LOW PARAPET
43' - 6"
MID PARAPET
47' - 0"
49' - 6" OVERALL HEIGHT
01
02
03
04
05
06
03
07
07
08
09
10
12
22' - 11"20' - 0"22' - 11"29' - 8"
HIGH PARAPET
49' - 6"
95' - 6"
COVERED PARKING HEIGHT
18' - 6"
7' - 0"
ELEVATION KEY NOTES
SCALE:
mustard
D E S I G N
PRELIMINARY
THESE DRAWINGS ARE FOR INTERIM
REVIEW AND NOT FOR REGULATORY
APPROVAL, PERMITTING, OR
CONSTRUCTION.
WHITNEY KOCH
24419
a r c h i t e c t sAs indicated
CONCEPTUAL ELEVATIONS & COLORS/MATERIALS
R BANK
10.01.2020
SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"
NORTH ELEVATION
SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"
5TH STREET /
SOUTH ELEVATION
12 BACK LIT OR INTERNALLY ILLUMINATED BUILDING
SIGN, COLOR: BY TENANT, TO BE SUBMITTED
SEPARATELY
13 REINFORCED CMU DUMPSER ENCLOSURE W/STUCCO
FINISH TO MATCH BUILDING
14 STEEL FRAMED ACCESS DOOR WITH 1x4 STAINED
WOOD INFILL, FRAME TO BE PAINTED TO MATCH
BUILDING WINDOWS
15 ANODIZED DARK BRONZE OR BLACK DRIVE THROUGH
TELLER WINDOW
16 MODULAR, CAST STONE OR NATURAL STONE
RETAINING WALL W/REINFORCED CAST-IN-PLACE
CONRETE AS NEEDED
07 DARK BRONZE ANODIZED OR BLACK ALUMINUM CLAD
FIXED WINDOW WITH MIDDLE MULLION, AND LOW-E,
NON-REFLECTIVE COATING
08 DARK BRONZE ANODIZED OR BLACK ALUMINUM CLAD
FIXED WINDOW W/ TRANSOM, MULLIONS, AND LOW-E,
NON-REFLECTIVE COATING
09 DARK BRONZE ANODIZED OR BLACK ALUMINUM CLAD
DOOR W/ TRANSOM, AND LOW-E, NON-REFLECTIVE
COATING
10 BACK LIT OR INTERNALL ILLUMINATED BANK DRIVE
THROUGH SIGNS, TO BE SUBMITTED SEPARATELY
11 HOLLOW METAL DOOR & HOLLOW METAL FRAME;
PAINTED TO MATCH ADJACENT WALL SURFACE
01 12"x24" SMOOTH CAST STONE OR CUT LIMESTONE
VENEER. CREAM OR BUFF COLORED, OR SIMILAR
02 THREE COAT CEMENTITIOUS PORTLAND STUCCO ON
METAL LATH. JOINTS AS INDICATED ON ELEVATIONS.
03 STUCCO CORNICE BANDS WITH IMPLIED JOINTS TO
MIMIC CAST/CUT STONE, COLOR TO MATCH CAST
STONE VENEER.
04 STUCCO CORNICE BAND WITH IMPLIED JOINTS AND
PREFINISHED METAL PARAPET CAP, COLOR TO
MATCH CAST/CUT STONE VENEER.
05 24"x32" SMOOTH CAST STONE OR CUT LIMESTONE
VENEER PLYNTH. COLOR, TEXTURE AND JOINT
SPACING TO MATCH ADJACENT CAST/STONE VENEER.
06 STUCCO SILL WITH IMPLIED JOINTS, COLOR TO
MATCH CAST/ CUT STONE VENEER
Page 15 of 116
SCALE:
mustard
D E S I G N
PRELIMINARY
THESE DRAWINGS ARE FOR INTERIM
REVIEW AND NOT FOR REGULATORY
APPROVAL, PERMITTING, OR
CONSTRUCTION.
WHITNEY KOCH
24419
a r c h i t e c t s
CONCEPTUAL PERSPECTIVES
R BANK
10.01.2020
SOUTHWEST PERSPECTIVE
NORTHEAST PERSPECTIVESOUTHEAST PERSPECTIVE
NTS
Page 16 of 116
209 S. Llano St., Suite B Fredericksburg, TX 78624 t. 830.997.7024 f.830.212.4064 www.mustarddesign.net
September 30, 2020
Ms. Britin Bostick
Downtown & Historic Planner
City of Georgetown britin.bostick@georgetown.org
RE: 2020-45-COA: Site Plan for R Bank Pre-meeting HARC review comments
Dear Britin and members of HARC,
Thank you for the preliminary review of our project designs for the HARC proceedings, we have listed a
written response to each of the partially compliant listings in the City staff comments, and the comments
received during the pre-review meeting for the above-mentioned project.
City Staff Comment:
13.3 A new building shall reflect the traditional lot
width as expressed by the following:
Variation in height at internal lot lines.
· Variation in the plane of the front façade.
Variation in architectural detailing and materials
to emphasize the building module.
· Variation in the façade height to reflect
traditional lot width.
Partially Complies
The subject property is platted as a single lot and
there are not interior lot lines to be expressed in the
building façade. The front facade plane has
minimal variation with repeating architectural
features, although the detailing at the center
portion of the street facades provides variation for
the center module. The façade height is consistent
except for cornice details in the center portions.
Response:
As noted the site is platted as a single lot and no interior lot lines were or are present in which to
respond to.
The design the Austin Avenue (west) façade has been adjusted to more closely align with the 30 foot
module referenced. The parapet heights have been adjusted to provide more of a height variation
at the modules, and the parapet returns on the central sections of the North, South, and West
facades have been increased to visually imply the continuation of the center module from the street-
perspective.
City Staff Comment:
13.4 Building heights of larger projects should
provide variety.
· A larger development should step down in
height towards the street or smaller, surrounding
structures.
· Vary the building height in accordance with
traditional lot width.
· Set back the upper floor to vary the building
façade profile(s) and the roof forms across the
width and the depth of the building.
Vary the façade (or parapet) heights at the front.
Partially Complies
The proposed project does not step down in height
toward the street or toward smaller structures to the
east, and a structure of similar height is adjacent to
the south. The building height is not varied in
accordance with traditional lot width (typically 20’-
40’ width around the Square and 50’-60’ for lot
widths in the surrounding blocks for comparison),
although the parapet height at both the Austin Ave.
and W. 5th St. facades has a variation in the center.
Response:
The building height as presented is allowed by the standard zoning ordinance, and is in process of Staff
review for compliance with the Courthouse View corridor requirements. However, in an effort to respond to
the adjacent townhomes, the original design provides a lower covered parking area to reflect the garage
entries opposite the access easement. The design team has also adjusted the parapet over the drive
through area down to provide a step-down to the adjacent site while not minimizing the building’s available
square footage.
The design the Austin Avenue (west) façade has been adjusted to more closely align with the 30 foot
module referenced. The parapet heights have been adjusted to provide more of a height variation at the
modules, and the parapet returns on the central sections of the North, South, and West facades have been
increased to visually imply the continuation of the center module from the street-perspective.
Page 17 of 116
HARC - CoA Comment Response Page 2 of 4
2020-45-CoA
October 1, 2020
\\NAS\current projects file\Current Projects File\2020\2010 - RBank - SDP & HARC\01 - PM\04 - Jurisdictional agencies\04 - Historic Review\2nd Round
comments\HARC 2020-45-COA plan comments - response #2.docx
City Staff Comment:
13.5 Large project sites should be developed with
several buildings, rather than a single structure.
This will help reduce the perceived size of the
project.
· The façade height shall be varied to reflect
traditional lot width.
Partially Complies
The half block subject property is not being
developed entirely with buildings, as on-site parking
requirements apply. However, the three-story height
and 22,702 sq. ft. size of the building make it a large
project, and the façade height does not have
variation that reflects traditional lot width.
Response:
While the site is large, the project design is driven by a single banking tenant set to occupy the first
floor of the building, and thus is not conducive to a design where multiple buildings are present. A
single building is required to meet the client needs.
The design the Austin Avenue (west) façade has been adjusted to more closely align with the 30 foot
module referenced. The parapet heights have been adjusted to provide more of a height variation
at the modules, and the parapet returns on the central sections of the North, South, and West
facades have been increased to visually imply the continuation of the center module from the street-
perspective.
City Staff Comment:
13.6 Where a large building is needed, divide the
building into modules that reflect the traditional size
of buildings.
· A typical building module should not exceed 30
feet in width. The building module should be
expressed with at least one of the following:
- A setback in wall planes of a minimum of
3 feet
- A change in primary facade material for
the extent of the building module
- A vertical architectural element or trim
piece
Variations in facade treatment should be
continued through the structure, including its
roofline and front and rear facades.
· If a larger building is divided into “modules,” they
should be expressed three-dimensionally
throughout the entire building. Variation in height
should occur where the site is larger than two
traditional lot widths, in order to reduce overall
scale of the building.
Partially Complies
The proposed building is approximately 100’ wide
and 96’ deep, and the proposed design of the
modules, which highlight the center portion or
module of the building facades with materials,
cornice details and height difference, exceed 30’ in
width for the two side modules.
The variation in materials for the center module is
carried through to the roof line and part of the
facades except for the east façade, which is
designed to accommodate the bank drive-thru. The
variation in height is not great enough for the
building scale to be reduced, and the modules are
more two dimensional than three dimensional.
Response:
The design the Austin Avenue (west) façade has been adjusted to more closely align with the 30 foot
module referenced. A material change has been provided at the central module, and vertical and
horizontal trim has been provided to articulate the façade change.
The parapet heights have been adjusted to provide more of a height variation at the modules, and
the parapet returns on the central sections of the North, South, and West facades have been
increased to visually imply the continuation of the center module from the street-perspective.
Page 18 of 116
HARC - CoA Comment Response Page 3 of 4
2020-45-CoA
October 1, 2020
\\NAS\current projects file\Current Projects File\2020\2010 - RBank - SDP & HARC\01 - PM\04 - Jurisdictional agencies\04 - Historic Review\2nd Round
comments\HARC 2020-45-COA plan comments - response #2.docx
City Staff Comment:
13.8 Masonry materials that convey a sense of scale
are preferred.
· Brick and stone are preferred for new
construction.
· New materials should appear similar in character
to those used traditionally. For example, stucco,
cast stone, and concrete should be detailed to
provide a human scale.
New materials should have a demonstrated
durability for the Central Texas climate. For
example, some facade materials used in new
construction are more susceptible to weather
and simply do not last as long as stone or brick.
Partially Complies
The project proposes to use a cut stone or cast stone
(manufactured stone) material for the first floor of the
building and at the center modules, as well as stucco
or EIFS for the primary façade materials, including the
siding, window sills and cornices. The stone and
stucco are meant to reference materials on other
commercial structures in the Downtown.
Response:
Limestone has been provided as the primary material at the pedestrian level and as a method for
articulating the vertical central module. The stone proposed is used to represent cut stone traditionally
found on governmental buildings and building of higher importance such as banks and post offices.
Buildings such as the Williamson County Courthouse and the original post office, now the Georgetown
Finance Department, the Public Library, and the Tamiaru Building have cut stone in their facades.
We have reduced the block size to be more in scale with the larger block found on such buildings as 701 S.
Main St. (Gumbo’s restaurant), 803 S Main St. (P.H. Dimmitt&Co.) building, and the building at 816 S Main St.
(Georgetown Art Center), and the new Georgetown City Hall and Municipal Court buildings.
Our stucco finish materials are representative of traditional plaster overlays which can be found on 700 S
Austin Ave #100 (Quenan’s Jewlers) where the stucco is present only at the upper levels of the north façade
and all the way to street level on the east façade facing Austin Ave, other buildings fronting the courthouse
square, and the new Municipal Court building.
City Staff Comment:
13.10 Traditional building materials such as wood,
brick, and stone are encouraged.
Horizontal lap siding of traditional dimensions is
appropriate in most applications.
Maintenance of traditional siding dimensions are
encouraged.
· Brick or stone, similar to that used tradition-ally, is
also appropriate.
Highly reflective materials are inappropriate.
New materials that are similar in character to
traditional ones may be considered. Alternative
materials should have a proven durability in
similar locations in this climate.
Partially Complies
Proposed materials include stone and stucco, but
the proposed cut or cast stone would have a smooth
face, which is different from the traditional limestone
blocks used on buildings in the Downtown. Stucco
was not usually an original exterior material in the
Downtown but has been added later to several
buildings to cover the building’s façade rather than
make other repairs, and many of the stucco façade
coverings have been removed over time or are
being considered for removal.
Response:
Limestone has been provided as the primary material at the pedestrian level and as a method for
articulating the vertical central module. The stone proposed is used to represent cut stone traditionally
found on governmental buildings and building of higher importance such as banks and post offices.
Buildings such as the Williamson County Courthouse and the original post office, now the Georgetown
Finance Department, the Public Library, and the Tamiaru Building have cut stone in their facades.
We have reduced the block size to be more in scale with the larger block found on such buildings as 701 S.
Main St. (Gumbo’s restaurant), 803 S Main St. (P.H. Dimmitt&Co.) building, the building at 816 S Main St.
(Georgetown Art Center), and the new Georgetown City Hall and Municipal Court buildings.
Our stucco finish materials are representative of traditional plaster overlays which can be found on
700 S Austin Ave #100 (Quenan’s Jewlers) where the stucco is present only at the upper levels of the
north façade and all the way to street level on the east façade facing Austin Ave, other buildings
fronting the courthouse square, and the new Municipal Court building.
Page 19 of 116
HARC - CoA Comment Response Page 4 of 4
2020-45-CoA
October 1, 2020
\\NAS\current projects file\Current Projects File\2020\2010 - RBank - SDP & HARC\01 - PM\04 - Jurisdictional agencies\04 - Historic Review\2nd Round
comments\HARC 2020-45-COA plan comments - response #2.docx
City Staff Comment:
13.12 Develop the ground floor level of a project to
encourage pedestrian activity.
Provide at least one of the following along
primary pedestrian ways:
- A storefront
- Display cases
- Landscaping
- A courtyard or plaza
· Include traditional elements such as display
windows, kickplates, and transoms on
commercial storefronts.
Avoid a blank wall or vacant lot appearance.
Partially Complies
Proposed project will provide landscaping in
accordance with UDC requirements, which are
reviewed as part of the Site Development Plan
application. The proposed building is constructed as
a bank and office building and does not have
traditional storefront features.
Response:
The building design provides pedestrian access along the 4th and 5th street elevations. Due to the natural
topography of the site, the building finish floor elevation in relationship to Austin Avenue, and the building
program for access to the bank lobbies, pedestrian access cannot be provided directly from the west
elevation (Austin Ave.)
Pedestrian access is accommodated through direct connections along 5th Avenue and through the
parking lot entry facing 4th Street. The primary entries provide a recessed entryway complete with
traditional style doors with traditional-style kick plates and transom elements.
A landscape buffer has been provided in the original design documents to soften the pedestrian sidewalk
running parallel to the west, Austin Ave. elevation. Soft, lush landscape and flowering multi-trunk trees will
be provided to soften the tall façade that faces Austin Ave.
To provide a more pedestrian feeling elevation the Austin Street façade windows have been adjusted at
the first floor level. The window spacing and layout have been adjusted to more reflect the traditional
“storefront” window type, while allowing for privacy and security to the bank tenants within the building.
Commissioner Comment:
Window Orientation is suggested to be more vertical
than wide
Response:
The window orientation and layout have been reviewed, and updated to reflect a more vertical window.
The positioning and paring of the windows has also been updated to reflect the revised building
elevations.
Revised drawings have been provided as an attachment to this document. Thank you for the preliminary
review, should you have any questions please contact me directly.
Sincerely,
Whitney Koch, AIA, NCARB
Mustard Design Architects
Registered Architect Texas 24419
Page 20 of 116
Planning Department Staff Report
Historic and Architectural Review Commission
2020-45-COA – 405 S. Austin Avenue Page 1 of 11
Meeting Date: October 8, 2020
File Number: 2020-45-COA
AGENDA ITEM DESCRIPTION
Public Hearing and Possible Action on a request for a Certificate of Appropriateness for new building
construction (infill development) at the property located at 405 S. Austin Avenue, bearing the legal
description 0.7434 acres, being Lot 9, Replat of Block 24, City of Georgetown.
AGENDA ITEM DETAILS
Project Name: R Bank - Georgetown
Applicant: Whitney Koch (Mustard Design)
Property Owner: Carr Ryan Re 4, LLC
Property Address: 405 S. Austin Avenue
Legal Description: 0.7434 acres, being Lot 9, Replat of Block 24, City of Georgetown
Historic Overlay: Downtown Overlay District
Case History: HARC Conceptual Review on 09/24/2020.
HISTORIC CONTEXT
Date of construction: N/A
Historic Resources Survey Level of Priority: N/A
National Register Designation: N/A
Texas Historical Commission Designation: N/A
APPLICANT’S REQUEST
HARC:
• New building construction (infill development)
STAFF ANALYSIS
Site information
Public records show that what is now Block 24 of the City of Georgetown was originally designated as
Block 11. On October 5th, 1868, John J. Stubblefield purchased a block that had been Block 11 on the
original and was now Block 24 on the revised map from Stephen and Eda Strickland for $1,000. The
Stricklands noted that they had been living on that block at the time of the transaction. On March 15,
1884 the Stubblefields’ children sold the west half of Block 24 to Elizabeth Talbot for $1,200. Elizabeth
Jane Talbott (also written Talbot) was the daughter of Georgetown founder George Washington
Glasscock. Elizabeth’s first marriage was to Lon Logan, and their children and grandchildren inherited
the west half of Block 24 when Elizabeth died in 1917. The heirs sold the property to Elizabeth’s oldest
son J. D. Logan in 1918. J. D. sold the west half of the block to his son, Robert Lee Logan, in 1922 when
Page 21 of 116
Planning Department Staff Report
Historic and Architectural Review Commission
2020-45-COA – 405 S. Austin Avenue Page 2 of 11
Robert was 25 years old. Robert and his wife Mildred had a son, Jackson Davis Logan, in July 1923, who
later inherited the house, selling it in the early 1980s.
Sanborn Fire Insurance Maps and photos from Special Collections at Southwestern University show a
large house with several later additions was on the west half of Block 24 as early as 1916, when the house
was still owned and possibly inhabited by Elizabeth Talbott. The original portion of the house may have
been built by the Stricklands, as Stephen Strickland had successfully petitioned Williamson County to
acknowledge his ownership of the block in 1855. Thirteen years later the Stubblefields purchased the
block and lived there for sixteen years. From 1884 to 1980 the house was owned and mostly occupied by
Elizabeth Talbott, her children, grandchildren, and great-grandchildren. A photo from “before 1991”
shows the house still standing, but by the mid-1990’s it was removed and replaced with a vehicle lot for
Draeger Motor Company. The property has been vacant for several years.
The subject property was platted in 2004 with a large, single lot on the west portion of the block along
Austin Avenue and eight smaller lots facing Main Street. The entire block is zoned Mixed Use Downtown
(MU-DT), and is surrounded by MU-DT zoning to the south and west, MU-DT, Residential Single Family
(RS) and Two-Family (TF) to the north and east and Office (OF) to the southeast. The surrounding
properties are a mix of historic and non-historic structures, residential and non-residential, with building
heights that range from a single story to four stories, and with a variety of building styles and materials.
The smaller lots on the same block as the subject property have been developed as townhomes (attached
dwellings on separate lots) as well as single family homes (separate dwellings on separate lots). The
proposed building is sited at the southwest corner of the project site, along the Austin Avenue and E. 5th
Street property lines. Directly to the south is the Tamiro Building, which is slightly taller than this
proposed building and has four stories, the fourth being stepped back from the lower three floors. The
Tamiro Building has a narrower façade along Austin Avenue but a wider façade along E. 5th Street than
does this proposed building. To the southwest is the Monument Café, and to the west across Austin
Avenue is a city parking lot. To the northwest is a single story, medium priority office building and to
the north is the historic Williamson County Jail, a two-story, high priority structure. To the northwest
are one-story residential structures that have converted to commercial use. Directly to the east are 8
residences, four detached single-family homes and four attached townhomes. The density of the
townhomes to the east of the property is 13.6 units/gross acre. Further east on the next block is a historic,
two-story, high-priority residential structure known as the Taylor-Cooper House. To the southeast is a
two-story residence that has converted to office use.
Height
The applicant is requesting HARC approval of a new, three story bank and office with a drive-thru
located on the east side of the building. The new building is proposed to be a total of 2 2,702 sq. ft., with
a 40’ roof height and a 47’ parapet height. The proposed exterior materials are cast stone or cut limestone
and stucco, with dark aluminum frame windows and non-reflective glazing. The proposed design
includes decorative stucco details at the first and top floors, as well as stone and stucco details to highlight
the building entrances on the north and south elevations and the center section of the Austin Avenue
(west) façade. The highest point of the roof parapet at 49’-6” is proposed for the cornice details in the
Page 22 of 116
Planning Department Staff Report
Historic and Architectural Review Commission
2020-45-COA – 405 S. Austin Avenue Page 3 of 11
center of the street-facing facades, while the parapet surrounding the roof (“mid parapet”) is 47’ in
height. This parapet acts to screen rooftop mechanical equipment from view, while the “low parapet” is
a decorative element.
Signage
Signage is not proposed as part of this application, but the submitted plans show building signage areas
on each of the three street facades.
Building Design
A building entrance is proposed for the E. 5th Street façade, as well as for the north façade facing the
parking area. As the sidewalk required by the new development is designed to follow the slope of the
street curb along Austin Avenue and will require short retaining walls to manage the site grading, the
building is not proposed to have an entrance on the Austin Avenue façade. Although signage is included
in the project renderings and drawings for reference, approval of signage is not requested as part of this
Certificate of Appropriateness and will be submitted in a separate application. The building massing and
form were designed to reflect larger scale civic and business buildings rather than a set of narrower,
traditional building widths as one would see around the Square and adjacent blocks.
Materials
The applicant is requesting HARC approval of cut limestone and cast stone on the building exterior for
both the first floor façade and decorative architectural elements so that there can be some flexibility for
the applicant in the final choice of materials. Either material would have a smooth face. In the Downtown
Overlay District, the traditional stone used is limestone, which has a rough face or texture on many of
the historic buildings and some of the newer infill buildings. There are some historic buildings, including
the historic Williamson County Courthouse (1910) and the historic Farmer’s State Bank Building (1910),
now the Williamson Museum, which have cut or cast stone details and a cut stone façade. The applicant
is also requesting approval of stucco for the second and third floor exterior of the building. Although
there are not many examples of stucco as an original siding material in the Downtown Overlay District,
many buildings have had stucco applied to the façade, including the Stromberg-Hoffman & Co. Building
and the Harry Gold Building. The windows are proposed to be aluminum storefront windows with
either a dark bronze or black finish and non-reflective glazing. The ground floor windows are proposed
to have an upper glazed section reminiscent of a traditional transom window, and the upper floor
windows are proposed to have either two equal sections and appear as a single window or have four
equal sections and appear as a double window.
In the Conceptual Review of the project on September 24, 2020, the HARC Commissioners provided
feedback to the applicant on the design presented based on the applicable Guidelines, which included:
• Adding more variation to the façades, emphasizing the Austin Avenue street facade
• Reducing the mass of the building
• Adjusting the proportions of the upper floor windows to a greater height than width
• Giving more consideration to the pedestrian experience on the Austin Avenue façade
Page 23 of 116
Planning Department Staff Report
Historic and Architectural Review Commission
2020-45-COA – 405 S. Austin Avenue Page 4 of 11
• Stepping down the building height toward the adjacent residential properties
• More examples of the proposed materials installed
In response to HARC’s feedback, the applicant has provided revised drawings and a letter noting the
adjustments made in response to the Commission’s comments. The adjustments include:
• Reducing the height of the roof parapet on the portion of the building over the drive thru
• Adding headers over the windows and entrance openings on the first floor and over the windows
within the stone-clad portions of the façade to reflect traditional building details
• Adjusting the Austin Avenue façade to a wider center module
• Adjusting the windows on the Austin Avenue façade to a different configuration on the two side
modules
• Increasing the depth of the cornice returns on the parapets to create a greater perception of depth
for that architectural feature
• Adjusting the proportions and number of the second and third floor windows on the Austin
Avenue façade and on a portion of the east façade
The staff findings and recommendation are based on the latest version of the building design received
after the HARC conceptual review.
APPLICABLE DESIGN GUIDELINES
The following guidelines are applicable to the proposed scope of work in accordance with the adopted
Downtown and Old Town Design Guidelines:
GUIDELINES FINDINGS
CHAPTER 13 – DESIGN GUIDELINES FOR INFILL CONSTRUCTION
IN AREA 2 – DOWNTOWN OVERLAY DISTRICT
13.1 Locate a new building at the front property line.
✓ Align the building front at the sidewalk edge.
✓ A minimum of 50% of the street frontage of a
property shall have a building wall at the
sidewalk edge.
✓ Where no sidewalk exists one should be
installed that aligns with nearby sidewalks.
Complies
Proposed building is set at the Austin Ave.
and W. 5th St. property lines along the
sidewalk edge. New sidewalk is to be
constructed along the three street frontages
as part of the proposed project.
13.2 Where a portion of a building must be set back,
define the edge of the property with landscape
elements.
✓ For example, define the edges of a lot with
landscaping, such as low-scale urban street
trees or shrubs.
✓ Landscaping elements should be compatible
with the character of the area in size, scale, and
Complies
Landscaping and screening are to be
provided in accordance with the UDC
requirements and are reviewed as part of
the Site Development Plan application
process.
Page 24 of 116
Planning Department Staff Report
Historic and Architectural Review Commission
2020-45-COA – 405 S. Austin Avenue Page 5 of 11
GUIDELINES FINDINGS
CHAPTER 13 – DESIGN GUIDELINES FOR INFILL CONSTRUCTION
IN AREA 2 – DOWNTOWN OVERLAY DISTRICT
type. Free-form, suburban type landscaping is
inappropriate in this setting.
✓ Also consider using a fence, or other structural
element, that reflects the position of typical
storefront elements. These elements should
align with nearby traditional commercial
building types.
13.3 A new building shall reflect the traditional lot
width as expressed by the following:
✓ Variation in height at internal lot lines.
• Variation in the plane of the front façade.
✓ Variation in architectural detailing and materi-
als to emphasize the building module.
• Variation in the façade height to reflect tra-
ditional lot width.
Partially Complies
The subject property is platted as a single
lot and there are not interior lot lines to be
expressed in the building façade. The front
facade plane has minimal variation with
repeating architectural features, although
the materials and details at the center
portion of the street facades provide
variation for the center module. The façade
height is consistent except for cornice
details in the center portions, and the lower
parapet height over the drive thru.
13.4 Building heights of larger projects should
provide variety.
✓ A larger development should step down in
height towards the street or smaller, sur-
rounding structures.
• Vary the building height in accordance with
traditional lot width.
• Set back the upper floor to vary the building
façade profile(s) and the roof forms across the
width and the depth of the building.
✓ Vary the façade (or parapet) heights at the
front.
Partially Complies
The proposed project steps down in height
toward the smaller structures to the east by
reducing the height of the parapet. The
building height is not varied in accordance
with traditional lot width (typically 20’- 40’
width around the Square and 50’-60’ for lot
widths in the surrounding blocks for
comparison), although the parapet height at
both the Austin Ave. and W. 5th St. facades
has a variation in the center.
13.5 Large project sites should be developed with
several buildings, rather than a single structure.
✓ This will help reduce the perceived size of the
project.
• The façade height shall be varied to reflect
traditional lot width.
Partially Complies
The half block subject property is not being
developed entirely with buildings, as on-
site parking requirements apply. However,
the three-story height and 22,702 sq. ft. size
of the building make it a large project, and
the façade height does not have variation
that reflects traditional lot width.
Page 25 of 116
Planning Department Staff Report
Historic and Architectural Review Commission
2020-45-COA – 405 S. Austin Avenue Page 6 of 11
GUIDELINES FINDINGS
CHAPTER 13 – DESIGN GUIDELINES FOR INFILL CONSTRUCTION
IN AREA 2 – DOWNTOWN OVERLAY DISTRICT
13.6 Where a large building is needed, divide the
building into modules that reflect the traditional
size of buildings.
✓ A typical building module should not exceed
30 feet in width. The building module should
be expressed with at least one of the following:
o A setback in wall planes of a minimum
of 3 feet
o A change in primary facade material
for the extent of the building module
o A vertical architectural element or trim
piece
✓ Variations in facade treatment should be
continued through the structure, including its
roofline and front and rear facades.
• If a larger building is divided into “modules,”
they should be expressed three-dimensionally
throughout the entire building. Variation in
height should occur where the site is larger
than two traditional lot widths, in order to
reduce overall scale of the building.
Partially Complies
The proposed building is approximately
100’ wide and 96’ deep, and the proposed
design of the modules, which highlight the
center portion or module of the building
facades with materials, cornice details and
height difference, are 36’ in width for the
two side modules and 30’ for the center
module. The variation in materials for the
center module is carried through to the roof
line and part of the facades except for the
east façade, which is designed to
accommodate the bank drive-thru. The
variation in height is not great enough for
the building scale to be reduced, and the
modules are more two dimensional than
three dimensional.
13.7 Maintain views to the courthouse.
✓ In certain circumstances views to the court-
house shall be taken into consideration when
designing a new building.
✓ A new building shall not be so tall as to block
views of the courthouse.
Complies
The proposed building is located directly
north of an existing building with a taller
height and greater width within the
Courthouse view corridor than is proposed
for this project, and the subject building
does not further block existing views of the
courthouse.
13.8 Masonry materials that convey a sense of scale
are preferred.
✓ Brick and stone are preferred for new con-
struction.
✓ New materials should appear similar in char-
acter to those used traditionally. For example,
stucco, cast stone, and concrete should be
detailed to provide a human scale.
✓ New materials should have a demonstrated
durability for the Central Texas climate. For
Complies
The project proposes to use a cut stone or
cast stone (manufactured stone) material for
the first floor of the building and at the
center modules, which provides the detail at
human scale, which the Design Guidelines
recommend. The design also includes
stucco for the primary façade materials,
including the siding, windowsills and
cornices. The stone and stucco are meant to
Page 26 of 116
Planning Department Staff Report
Historic and Architectural Review Commission
2020-45-COA – 405 S. Austin Avenue Page 7 of 11
GUIDELINES FINDINGS
CHAPTER 13 – DESIGN GUIDELINES FOR INFILL CONSTRUCTION
IN AREA 2 – DOWNTOWN OVERLAY DISTRICT
example, some facade materials used in new
construction are more susceptible to weather
and simply do not last as long as stone or brick.
reference materials on other commercial
structures in the Downtown, and
architectural details materials incorporated
into the façade design.
13.9 A simple material finish is encouraged for a
large expanse of wall plane.
✓ A matte, or non-reflective, finish is preferred.
✓ Polished stone and mirrored glass, for
example, are inappropriate and should be
avoided as primary materials.
Complies
Proposed materials are matte finish and
non-reflective.
13.10 Traditional building materials such as wood,
brick, and stone are encouraged.
✓ Horizontal lap siding of traditional
dimensions is appropriate in most
applications.
✓ Maintenance of traditional siding dimensions
are encouraged.
✓ Brick or stone, similar to that used tradition-
ally, is also appropriate.
✓ Highly reflective materials are inappropriate.
✓ New materials that are similar in character to
traditional ones may be considered. Alterna-
tive materials should have a proven durability
in similar locations in this climate.
Complies
Proposed materials include stone and
stucco, and the proposed cut limestone
(natural stone) or cast stone (manufactured
stone) would have a smooth face, which is
similar to some of the cut stone facades and
building details used on buildings in the
Downtown. Stucco was not usually an
original exterior material in the Downtown
but has been added later to several
buildings to cover the building façades
including buildings on the Square. In some
cases, the stucco material has been
removed, but several building still retain
their painted stucco facades.
13.11 Use roof materials that appear similar to those
seen traditionally.
✓ Metal and shingle roofs are preferred.
✓ Clay tile is discouraged.
Complies
Proposed roof is a flat roof with parapet,
which is compatible with traditional
structures.
13.12 Develop the ground floor level of a project to
encourage pedestrian activity.
✓ Provide at least one of the following along
primary pedestrian ways:
- A storefront
- Display cases
- Landscaping
- A courtyard or plaza
Complies
Proposed project will provide landscaping
in accordance with UDC requirements,
which are reviewed as part of the Site
Development Plan application. The
proposed building is constructed as a bank
and office building and does not have
traditional storefront features, however the
ground floor windows have been designed
with an upper section that interprets a
Page 27 of 116
Planning Department Staff Report
Historic and Architectural Review Commission
2020-45-COA – 405 S. Austin Avenue Page 8 of 11
GUIDELINES FINDINGS
CHAPTER 13 – DESIGN GUIDELINES FOR INFILL CONSTRUCTION
IN AREA 2 – DOWNTOWN OVERLAY DISTRICT
✓ Include traditional elements such as display
windows, kickplates, and transoms on com-
mercial storefronts.
✓ Avoid a blank wall or vacant lot appearance.
traditional transom, and there are no blank
walls proposed for the building facades.
13.13 Orient the primary entrance of a building
toward the street.
✓ A building should have a clearly-defined
primary entrance.
✓ The building entrance should be recessed.
✓ A primary building entrance also should be at
or near street level.
Complies
The proposed building has a defined
primary entrance from W. 5th St. and from
the parking lot on the north side of the
building, both of which are recessed and at
street level. However, the Austin Ave.
façade does not have an entrance.
13.14 Clearly identify the road edge and project
entrances for both automobiles and pedestrians.
• Use landscaping and lighting accents to
identify entrances.
Complies
The proposed project has defined entrances
for both pedestrians and vehicles.
13.15 Minimize the number of entrances along a
street edge.
• Sharing ingress and egress points with
neighboring projects is strongly encouraged
with consideration to safety.
Complies
Proposed site access is from the rear of the
project via a shared access easement.
13.16 Place parking areas to the rear of a site when
feasible or disburse throughout the site.
• See also the design guidelines for Parking
found in Chapter 8.
Complies
Proposed parking is reviewed as part of the
Site Development Plan, and must meet the
City’s UDC requirements.
CRITERIA FOR APPROVAL
In accordance with Section 3.13.030 of the Unified Development Code, the HARC must consider the
following criteria:
SECTION 3.13.030 CRITERIA FINDINGS
1. The application is complete and the
information contained within the application
is correct and sufficient enough to allow
adequate review and final action;
Complies
Staff reviewed the application and deemed
it complete.
2. Compliance with any design standards of this
Code;
Partially Complies
Proposed project requires approval of an
Administrative Exception for the proposed
overall building height within the
Page 28 of 116
Planning Department Staff Report
Historic and Architectural Review Commission
2020-45-COA – 405 S. Austin Avenue Page 9 of 11
SECTION 3.13.030 CRITERIA FINDINGS
Courthouse View Protection Overlay
District.
3. Compliance with the Secretary of the Interior's
Standards for the Treatment of Historic
Properties to the most extent practicable;
Not Applicable
Subject property is a vacant lot and has no
historic structures.
4. Compliance with the adopted Downtown and
Old Town Design Guidelines, as may be
amended from time to time, specific to the
applicable Historic Overlay District;
Partially Complies
Proposed project complies or partially
complies with applicable Design
Guidelines.
5. The general historic, cultural, and architectural
integrity of the building, structure or site is
preserved;
Complies
The subject site has been vacant for several
years and was previously a residential block
with commercial parking lot.
6. New buildings or additions are designed to be
compatible with surrounding properties in the
applicable historic overlay district;
Partially Complies
The proposed design does not mimic the
traditional building widths as expressed in
the Design Guidelines, however the
architect has stated their perspective that
the building is more in keeping with larger
buildings in the Downtown rather than
attempting to replicate the Main Street
storefronts that are two blocks south of this
property. The proposed height is
compatible with the existing commercial
building to the south, but taller than the
residential structures to the east. Only a
small portion of covered parking adjacent to
the drive-thru is a single story in height
while the second and third floors are
situated above the drive-thru lanes. The
proportions of the window openings are
one of the most significant differences
between this proposed building and the
traditional buildings in the Downtown.
Downtown windows tend to be taller than
they are wide and emphasize a vertical
orientation. The proposed windows vary in
width/height on all the building facades.
The windows on the Austin Avenue façade
have different sizes and proportions than
the windows on the other three facades,
Page 29 of 116
Planning Department Staff Report
Historic and Architectural Review Commission
2020-45-COA – 405 S. Austin Avenue Page 10 of 11
SECTION 3.13.030 CRITERIA FINDINGS
which are proportioned with a greater
width than height and which visually
compete with the vertical elements of the
building facade.
7. The overall character of the applicable historic
overlay district is protected; and
Partially Complies
The proposed new building has elements
that reflect the variation in character of the
Downtown Overlay District, including
materials and exterior details, however
some characteristics of the building design,
such as the windows, are not consistent
with the overall character of the district.
8. The Master Sign Plan is in keeping with the
adopted Downtown and Old Town Design
Guidelines and character of the historic
overlay district.
Not Applicable
No signage is proposed as part of this
application.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Based on the findings listed above, staff recommends APPROVAL WITH CONDITIONS of the request.
Staff recommends that the conditions of the approval are:
• That all three street-facing facades have a consistent window design on the first or ground floor
of the building, and that the windows on the first or ground floor have proportions consistent
with traditional storefront windows, or as proposed for the windows in the center portion of the
Austin Avenue façade and the 5th Street and north facades.
• That the windows on the second and third floors be consistent on all four facades, and that the
windows have a greater height than width, with proportions more consistent with traditional
upper floor windows.
• That HARC be provided with additional examples of the proposed materials installed as
requested during the conceptual review.
As of the date of this report, staff has received 0 written comments.
ATTACHMENTS
Exhibit 1 – Location Map
Exhibit 2 – Letter of Intent
Exhibit 3 – Plans and Specifications
Exhibit 4 – Applicant Response to HARC Conceptual Review
PUBLIC COMMENTS
Page 30 of 116
Planning Department Staff Report
Historic and Architectural Review Commission
2020-45-COA – 405 S. Austin Avenue Page 11 of 11
SUBMITTED BY
Britin Bostick, Downtown & Historic Planner
Page 31 of 116
R Bank 405 S. Austin Ave.
2020-45-COA
Historic & Architectural Review Commission
October 8, 2020
1Page 32 of 116
Item Under Consideration
2020-45-COA –R Bank Georgetown
Public Hearing and Possible Action on a request for a Certificate of Appropriateness for new
building construction (infill development)at the property located at 405 S.Austin Avenue,
bearing the legal description 0.7434 acres,being Lot 9,Replat of Block 24,City of
Georgetown.
2Page 33 of 116
Item Under Consideration
HARC:
•New building construction (infill development)
3Page 34 of 116
Item Under Consideration
4Page 35 of 116
Historic
County Jail
5
Tamiro Plaza
Monument
Cafe
Page 36 of 116
Current Context
6Page 37 of 116
1916 & 1925 Sanborn Maps
7Page 38 of 116
c. 1934 Aerial Photos From SU Special Collections
8Page 39 of 116
c. 1934 Aerial Photo from SU Special Collections
9Page 40 of 116
1964 Aerial Photo
10Page 41 of 116
1974 Aerial Photo
11Page 42 of 116
“Before 1991” Aerial Photo –Portal to Texas History
12Page 43 of 116
Current Context
13Page 44 of 116
Current Context
14Page 45 of 116
Replat of Block 24
15Page 46 of 116
R Bank –Proposed Site Plan
16Page 47 of 116
R Bank –Proposed Elevation
17Page 48 of 116
R Bank –Proposed Elevation
18Page 49 of 116
R Bank –Proposed Elevation
19Page 50 of 116
R Bank –Proposed Elevation
20Page 51 of 116
R Bank –Proposed Materials
21Page 52 of 116
R Bank –Proposed Materials
22Page 53 of 116
R Bank –Proposed Materials
23Page 54 of 116
Downtown Materials
WILCO Courthouse –Brick & Cut Stone Stromberg-Hoffman –Stucco, Williamson Museum –Cut Stone
24
Page 55 of 116
R Bank –Proposed Design
25Page 56 of 116
R Bank –Proposed Design
26Page 57 of 116
R Bank –Proposed Design
27Page 58 of 116
Current Context
28
View from northwest View from southwest
Page 59 of 116
Current Context
29
Parking lot to west Residential to east
Page 60 of 116
Current Context
30
Historic Courthouse
57.5’ Top of Railing
Riverplace
48’ Top of Parapet
Tamiro Building
51’ Building Height
Hitch Hall
33’-8” Top of Dome
Masonic Lodge
44’ Top of Parapet
WILCO Justice Center
31’-63’ Building Height
Performance Center
44’ Top of Parapet
Watkins Building
34’ Top of ParapetPage 61 of 116
Approval Criteria –UDC Section 3.13.030
Criteria Staff’s Finding
1. The application is complete and the information contained within the application is correct and
sufficient enough to allow adequate review and final action;Complies
2. Compliance with any design standards of this Code;Partially
Complies
3. Compliance with the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties to
the most extent practicable;N/A
4. Compliance with the adopted Downtown and Old Town Design Guidelines, as may be amended from
time to time, specific to the applicable Historic Overlay District;
Partially
Complies
5. The general historic, cultural, and architectural integrity of the building, structure or site is preserved;Complies
6. New buildings or additions are designed to be compatible with surrounding properties in the
applicable historic overlay district;
Partially
Complies
7. The overall character of the applicable historic overlay district is protected; and Complies
8. The Master Sign Plan is in keeping with the adopted Downtown and Old Town Design Guidelines and
character of the historic overlay district.N/A 31Page 62 of 116
Public Notification
•Three (3) signs posted
•No comments received
32Page 63 of 116
Recommendation
Staff recommends APPROVAL WITH CONDITIONS of the request. Staff
recommends that the conditions of the approval are:
•That all three street-facing facades have a consistent window design on the first
or ground floor of the building, and that the windows on the first or ground floor
have proportions consistent with traditional storefront windows, or as proposed
for the windows in the center portion of the Austin Avenue façade and the 5th
Street and north facades.
•That the windows on the second and third floors be consistent on all four
facades, and that the windows have a greater height than width, with
proportions more consistent with traditional upper floor windows.
•That HARC be provided with additional examples of the proposed materials
installed as requested during the conceptual review.
33Page 64 of 116
HARC Motion –2020-45-COA
•Approve (as presented by the applicant)
•Deny (as presented by the applicant)
•Approve with conditions
•Postpone
34Page 65 of 116
City of Georgetown, Texas
Historic and Architectural Review
October 8, 2020
S UB J E C T:
Public Hearing and P ossible Action on a request for a Certificate of Appropriateness (C O A) for a
4'-0" setback modific ation to the required 6' s ide setback to allow a carport struc ture 2'-0" from the s ide
(s outh) property line and an addition that creates a new, or adds to an exis ting s treet-facing façade at the
property loc ated at 1505 O live S treet, bearing the legal des cription 0.345 acres, being part of Block 40 of
the S nyder Addition. - Britin Bostick, Downtown & His toric P lanner
IT E M S UMMARY:
T he Applic ant is reques ting HAR C approval for the c o ns truc tion of a new, d etac hed c arp o rt. T he c arport
is proposed to b e 20’ x 20’ o r 400 s q. ft. in size and lo c ated o n top o f the existing c o nc rete d riveway. T he
carport is p ro p o s ed to b e c ons truc ted of metal c o lumns and roof, with exterio r materials inc luding
columns, roofing and s id ing, to matc h the columns on the exis ting his toric main struc ture and the ro o f and
s iding materials on the existing detached garage s tructure. Due to the location of the existing driveway in the
s etbac k, the ap p licant is also reques ting approval o f a 4’-0” setb ack mo d ificatio n, s o that the c arport
s tructure c an encroac h 2’-0” into the s id e 6’-0” setb ack. T he main s tructure has an approximately 2,737
s q. ft. fo o tprint, and the exis ting detached garage is ap p ro ximately 480 s q. ft. on both gro und and sec ond
floors .
F IN AN C IAL IMPAC T:
None. T he applicant has paid the required application fees .
S UB MIT T E D B Y:
Britin Bostick, Downtown & His toric P lanner
AT TAC H ME N T S:
Description Type
Staff Report Cover Memo
Exhibit 1 - Location Map Exhibit
Exhibit 2 - Letter of Intent Exhibit
Exhibit 3 - Plans & Specifications Exhibit
Exhibit 4 - His toric Resource Surveys Exhibit
Exhibit 5 - Public Comments Backup Material
Staff Pres entation Pres entation
Page 66 of 116
Planning Department Staff Report
Historic and Architectural Review Commission
2020-49-COA – 1505 Olive Street Page 1 of 7
Meeting Date: October 8, 2020
File Number: 2020-49-COA
AGENDA ITEM DESCRIPTION
Public Hearing and Possible Action on a request for a Certificate of Appropriateness (COA) for a 4'-0"
setback modification to the required 6' side setback to allow a carport structure 2'-0" from the side (south)
property line and an addition that creates a new, or adds to an existing street-facing façade at the
property located at 1505 Olive Street, bearing the legal description 0.345 acres, being part of Block 40,
Snyder Addition.
AGENDA ITEM DETAILS
Project Name: Maxwell’s Carport
Applicant: Jordan Silva (Zen Contracting)
Property Owner: Mary Sexton Maxwell
Property Address: 1505 Olive Street
Legal Description: 0.345 acres, being part of Block 40, Snyder Addition
Historic Overlay: Old Town Overlay District
Case History: N/A
HISTORIC CONTEXT
Date of construction: 1915 (Main House) and 1945 (Detached Garage) – HRS
Historic Resources Survey Level of Priority: Medium (Main House) and Low (Detached Garage)
National Register Designation: Within the Olive Street National Register Historic District
Texas Historical Commission Designation: N/A
APPLICANT’S REQUEST
HARC:
An addition that creates a new, or adds to an existing street-facing façade
Setback modification
STAFF ANALYSIS
The Applicant is requesting HARC approval for the construction of a new, detached carport. The carport
is proposed to be 20’ x 20’ or 400 sq. ft. in size and located on top of the existing concrete driveway. The
carport is proposed to be constructed of metal columns and roof, with exterior materials including
columns, roofing and siding, to match the columns on the existing historic main structure and the roof
and siding materials on the existing detached garage structure. Due to the location of the existing
driveway in the setback, the applicant is also requesting approval of a 4’-0” setback modification, so that
the carport structure can encroach 2’-0” into the side 6’-0” setback. The main structure has an
Page 67 of 116
Planning Department Staff Report
Historic and Architectural Review Commission
2020-49-COA – 1505 Olive Street Page 2 of 7
approximately 2,737 sq. ft. footprint, and the existing detached garage is approximately 480 sq. ft. on
both ground and second floors.
The property is not visible on any of the Sanborn Fire Insurance Maps, and the house does not appear in
c. 1934 aerial photos from Southwestern University’s Special Collections that show Olive Street from two
angles. In 1934, the property and surrounding blocks were farmland. Public records indicate that Sam
and Clellia Harris purchased the property from A. A. and Bonnye Allen on January 28, 1946. The garage
was likely to have been constructed that same year, but per information provided by the current owner,
the house was moved from the J. M. Page property on the west side of what is now Interstate 35, which
is why the house is estimated to have a 1915 construction date but the property was not developed until
1946. The Harrises owned the property until 1955. The house has had a mix of architectural styles, and
the exposed rafter ends, tapered front porch columns and divided lite upper windowpanes visible today
are Craftsman in style, which was popular at the time the house the is estimated to have been constructed.
The 1984 Historic Resource Survey form notes that in 1984 the front porch had fluted Doric columns in
pairs, which would have been more commonly found in buildings with a Classical Revival style. At the
time the house also did not have a front porch railing.
The proposed new carport would have a style similar to the current style of the main structure, with the
same style of columns, wood siding to match the siding profile of the detached garage (the main house
has asbestos siding), asphalt shingles and a gable roof instead of the hipped roof of the main house and
garage, which provides some differentiation between the new carport and the historic structures. The
new carport is proposed to be painted blue and white to match the current paint color scheme of the
historic structures.
APPLICABLE DESIGN GUIDELINES
The following guidelines are applicable to the proposed scope of work in accordance with the adopted
Downtown and Old Town Design Guidelines:
GUIDELINES FINDINGS
CHAPTER 14 – DESIGN GUIDELINES FOR INFILL CONSTRUCTION
AND ADDITIONS IN THE OLD TOWN OVERLAY DISTRICT
14.10 Non-traditional siding materials are
discouraged.
Typically, artificial stone and brick veneer are
not appropriate.
Asphalt shingles are not appropriate.
Aluminum and vinyl are not appropriate.
Complies
The applicant is proposing a tongue-in-
groove wood siding for the carport.
14.11 Avoid alterations that would damage historic
features.
Complies
As the carport is proposed to be a detached
structure, no historic materials are proposed
to be altered or removed.
Page 68 of 116
Planning Department Staff Report
Historic and Architectural Review Commission
2020-49-COA – 1505 Olive Street Page 3 of 7
GUIDELINES FINDINGS
CHAPTER 14 – DESIGN GUIDELINES FOR INFILL CONSTRUCTION
AND ADDITIONS IN THE OLD TOWN OVERLAY DISTRICT
Avoid alterations that would hinder the ability
to interpret the design character of the original
building or period of significance.
Alterations that seek to imply an earlier period
than that of the building are inappropriate.
14.12 An addition shall be compatible in scale,
materials, and character with the main building.
An addition shall relate to the building in
mass, scale, and form. It should be designed to
remain subordinate to the main structure.
An addition to the front of a building is
usually inappropriate.
Complies
The proposed single-story addition is
compatible in size, height, materials, and
character with the main house, and
proposes a roof pitch, siding and columns
that reference the existing historic
structures.
14.13 Design a new addition such that the original
character can be clearly seen.
In this way, a viewer can understand the
history of changes that have occurred to the
building.
An addition should be distinguishable from
the original building, even in subtle ways,
such that the character of the original can be
interpreted.
Creating a jog in the foundation between the
original and new structures may help to define
an addition.
Even applying new trim board at the con-
nection point between the addition and the
original structure can help define the addition.
See also Preservation Briefs #14: New Exterior
Additions to Historic Buildings, published by the
National Park Service.
Partially Complies
The carport structure is proposed to be set
back from and located behind and to the
side of the historic main structure, and will
not obstruct the view of it. However, the
carport is proposed to be located in front of
the garage structure as viewed from the
street, which would partially block the view
of it.
14.14 Place an addition at the rear of a building or set
it back from the front to minimize the visual
impacts.
This will allow the original proportions and
character to remain prominent.
Locating an addition at the front of a structure
is usually inappropriate.
Partially Complies
The carport structure has minimal visual
impact on the main structure but would
partially obstruct the view of the detached
garage.
Page 69 of 116
Planning Department Staff Report
Historic and Architectural Review Commission
2020-49-COA – 1505 Olive Street Page 4 of 7
GUIDELINES FINDINGS
CHAPTER 14 – DESIGN GUIDELINES FOR INFILL CONSTRUCTION
AND ADDITIONS IN THE OLD TOWN OVERLAY DISTRICT
14.15 Do not obscure, damage, destroy, or remove
original architectural details and materials of the
primary structure.
When preserving original details and materi-
als, follow the guidelines presented in this
document.
Complies
As the carport is proposed to be a detached
structure, no historic materials are proposed
to be altered or removed.
14.16 An addition shall be compatible in scale,
materials, character, and architectural style with the
main building.
An addition shall relate to the historic building
in mass, scale, and form. It should be designed
to remain subordinate to the main structure.
While a smaller addition is visually preferable,
if a residential addition would be significantly
larger than the original building, one option is
to separate it from the primary building, when
feasible, and then link it with a smaller
connecting structure.
An addition should be simple in design to
prevent it from competing with the primary
façade.
Consider adding dormers to create second
story spaces before changing the scale of the
building by adding a full second floor.
Complies
The proposed single-story addition is
compatible in size, height, materials, and
character with the main house, and
proposed to use elements that reflect the
columns on the front porch of the main
house, as well as the siding and pitch of the
detached garage. The gable roof style of the
carport differentiates the carport from the
historic main structure and garage.
14.17 An addition shall be set back from any
primary, character-defining façade.
An addition should be to the rear of the build-
ing, when feasible.
Complies
The carport is proposed to be fully behind
and to the side of the main structure.
14.18 The roof of a new addition shall be in character
with that of the primary building.
Typically, gable, hip, and shed roofs are ap-
propriate for residential additions. Flat roofs
may be more appropriate for commercial
buildings.
Repeat existing roof slopes and materials.
If the roof of the primary building is symmetri-
cally proportioned, the roof of the addition
should be similar.
Complies
The historic main structure and garage have
hip roof styles, and the carport is proposed
to have a gable roof style. However, the
gable roof has a pitch similar to the existing
structures, and the gable style helps to
differentiate the carport from the historic
structures.
Page 70 of 116
Planning Department Staff Report
Historic and Architectural Review Commission
2020-49-COA – 1505 Olive Street Page 5 of 7
CRITERIA FOR APPROVAL
In accordance with Section 3.13.030 of the Unified Development Code, the HARC must consider the
following criteria:
SECTION 3.13.030 CRITERIA FINDINGS
1. The application is complete and the
information contained within the application
is correct and sufficient enough to allow
adequate review and final action;
Complies
Staff reviewed the application and deemed
it complete.
2. Compliance with any design standards of this
Code;
Partially Complies
The proposed carport requires approval of a
setback modification.
3. Compliance with the Secretary of the Interior's
Standards for the Treatment of Historic
Properties to the most extent practicable;
Complies
SOI Standard #9: “New additions, exterior
alterations or related new construction will
not destroy historic materials, features and
spatial relationships that characterize the
property. The new work will be
differentiated from the old and will be
compatible with the historic materials,
features, size, scale and proportion, and
massing to protect the integrity of the
property and its environment.”
The proposed carport is compatible with
the historic structures and differentiated
from them by the proportions, materials
and roof style.
4. Compliance with the adopted Downtown and
Old Town Design Guidelines, as may be
amended from time to time, specific to the
applicable Historic Overlay District;
Partially Complies
Proposed project complies or partially
complies with applicable Design
Guidelines.
5. The general historic, cultural, and architectural
integrity of the building, structure or site is
preserved;
Complies
The proposed carport is compatible with
the existing historic structures on the site.
6. New buildings or additions are designed to be
compatible with surrounding properties in the
applicable historic overlay district;
Complies
The proposed new carport is compatible
with surrounding properties.
7. The overall character of the applicable historic
overlay district is protected; and
Complies
The proposed project does not diminish the
Old Town Overlay District, and the
Page 71 of 116
Planning Department Staff Report
Historic and Architectural Review Commission
2020-49-COA – 1505 Olive Street Page 6 of 7
SECTION 3.13.030 CRITERIA FINDINGS
proposed carport is consistent with the
character of the Overlay District.
8. The Master Sign Plan is in keeping with the
adopted Downtown and Old Town Design
Guidelines and character of the historic
overlay district.
Not Applicable
No signage is proposed as part of this
project.
In addition to the approval criteria listed above, HARC must also consider the following criteria for a
request for COA for a setback modification:
SECTION 3.13.030.D.2 CRITERIA FINDINGS
a. Whether the proposed setback encroachment is solely
a matter of convenience;
Complies
The proposed setback modification
allows the use of the existing driveway
and aligns with the historic detached
garage structure.
b. Whether there is adequate room on the site to allow the
proposed addition or new structure without
encroaching into the setback;
Complies
The proposed setback modification
allows the use of the existing driveway
and aligns with the historic detached
garage structure.
c. Whether the proposed setback is compatible and in
context within the block in which the subject property
is located;
Complies
A few other properties within the same
block have detached accessory structures
that encroach into the side setback.
d. Whether the proposed addition or new structure will
be set closer to the street than other units within the
block;
Complies
The proposed new carport will not be set
closer to the street than other structures
within the block.
e. Whether the proposed structure is replacing a
structure removed within the past year;
Not Applicable
No structures are being replaced.
f. Whether the proposed structure will replace a
structure that previously existed with relatively the
same footprint and encroachment as proposed;
Not Applicable
No structures are being replaced.
g. If the proposed encroachment is for a structure that is
replacing another structure, whether the proposed
structure is significantly larger than the original;
Not Applicable
No structures are being replaced.
h. If the proposed encroachment is for an addition, the
scale of the addition compared to the original house;
Complies
Page 72 of 116
Planning Department Staff Report
Historic and Architectural Review Commission
2020-49-COA – 1505 Olive Street Page 7 of 7
SECTION 3.13.030.D.2 CRITERIA FINDINGS
The proposed addition has a 400 sq. ft.
footprint, which is 14.6% of the
approximately 2,737 sq. ft. main house.
i. The size of the proposed structure compared to similar
structures within the same block;
Complies
Other properties within the same block
have similarly sized accessory
structures.
j. Whether the proposed addition or new structure will
negatively impact adjoining properties, including
limiting their ability to maintain existing buildings;
Complies
The proposed carport is not anticipated
to negatively impact adjoining
properties and will not be placed
adjacent to existing structures on the
abutting property to the south.
k. Whether there is adequate space for maintenance of the
proposed addition or new structure and/or any
adjacent structures; and/or
Complies
The proposed setback modification
leaves 2’-0” between the carport
structure and the property line, which is
adequate space for maintenance of the
structure.
l. Whether the encroachment would enable existing large
trees or significant features of the lot to be preserved.
Not Applicable
No trees or significant features are
proposed to be preserved.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Based on the findings listed above, staff recommends APPROVAL of the request for the carport addition
and setback modification.
As of the date of this report, staff has received no written comments.
ATTACHMENTS
Exhibit 1 – Location Map
Exhibit 2 – Letter of Intent
Exhibit 3 – Plans and Specifications
Exhibit 4 – Historic Resource Surveys
SUBMITTED BY
Britin Bostick, Downtown & Historic Planner
PUBLIC COMMENTS
Page 73 of 116
Location
2020-49-COA
Exhibit #1
E 15TH ST
SANJOSEST
E 16TH
ST
OLI
V
E
S
T
HO
L
LY
ST E18THST
MAP
L
E
S
T
E 17TH S
T
E 17TH ST
E 16TH ST
E 14TH ST
VI
N
E
S
T
JA
M
E
S
S
T
VIN
E
S
T
L
A
U
R
E
L
S
T
E 16TH ST
LA
U
R
E
L
S
T
E 17TH S
T
0 200100
Feet
¯
Site
Parcels
Page 74 of 116
To
Whom
It
May
Concern:
Please
allow
the
following
description
of
work
to
be
done
at
1505
Olive
St
Georgetown,
Texas
to
serve
as
our
“Letter
of
Intent.”
The
plan
is
construct
a
carport
in
front
of
the
existing
garage
to
serve
as
additional
covered
parking.
The
structure
will
be
street
facing
and
constructed
with
four
metal
4x4
posts
that
support
metal
trusses,
and
a
metal
roof.
In
order
for
the
design
of
the
structure
to
match
the
existing
house,
the
metal
columns
will
be
capped
in
craftsman
style
plywood
and
trim
to
provide
the
look
of
the
columns
that
are
currently
on
the
house.
Furthermore,
the
street-‐facing
gable
will
be
covered
in
105
siding
that
matches
the
existing
structure,
trimmed
and
painted
to
match.
The
goal
is
to
build
a
new
metal
structure
out
of
new
materials
but
to
give
it
the
same
look
as
the
existing
structures
on
the
property.
If
any
further
information
is
required
please
email
Zen
Contracting
(Jordan
Silva)
at
zencontractingatx@gmail.com.
Thank
you,
Jordan
Silva
Page 75 of 116
Page 76 of 116
COLUMN BASE PLATE CONNECTION
NTS
DETAIL 1
C1
Page 77 of 116
Page 78 of 116
9/8/2020 1056948.722977.jpg (2250×3000)
https://s3.amazonaws.com/dl1.mygovernmentonline.org/2020/portal/722977/1056948.722977.jpg?AWSAccessKeyId=AKIAZDV5FVCOQU3LLC7J&E…1/1
Page 79 of 116
9/8/2020 1056947.722977.jpg (3024×4032)
https://s3.amazonaws.com/dl1.mygovernmentonline.org/2020/portal/722977/1056947.722977.jpg?AWSAccessKeyId=AKIAZDV5FVCOQU3LLC7J&E…1/1
Page 80 of 116
Page 81 of 116
Page 82 of 116
Page 83 of 116
DESIGNATIONS
TN R IS No Old THC Code
PHOTO DATA
B&W 4x5s Slides
ROLL FRME
to
to
TO
YEAR DRWR
q RTHL 0 HABS (no.) TEX- 35mm Negs.
NR: 0 Individual 0 Historic District
0 Thematic 0 Multiple-Resource
NR File Name
Other
No of...2_ CONTINUATION PAGE
ROLL FRME
1 2
TEXAS HISTORIC SITES INVENTORY FORM — TEXAS HISTORICAL COMMISSION (rev. 8-82)
WM 750 Williamson 3097-313 1. County 5. USGS Quad No. Site No
City/Rural Georgetown t GE, UTM Sector 627-338Y
2. Name 6 Date: Factual Est 1915
Address 1505 Olive 7 Architect/Builder
Contractor Belford Lumber Co.
Francis W. O 'Brie n3. Owner 8 Style/Type
Address Same, 78626 9. Original Use residential
4. Block/Lot Snyder/Blk. 40/Lot 3 Present Use residential
10. Description One-story wood frame dwelling; exterior walls w/ asbestos shingle siding; hip roof
w/ composition shingles; exposed rafter ends; front elev. faces W.; wood sash double-
hung ,windows w/ 1/1, 4/1,, and 3/1 lights; single-door entrance; one-bay porch w/ hip
roof on W. elev.: fluted Doricl:columns in pairs. Other noteworthy features include crown;
11. Present Condition good
12. Significance Primary area of significance: architecture. Similar to dwelling at 403
Pun (Si to Mn 6nR)
13. Relationship to Site: Moved x Date
or Original Site (describe)
14. Bibliography Tax rolls 15. Informant Ray Sansom
16. Recorder A. Taylor/HI-IM
Date July 1984
TEXAS HISTORIC SITES INVENTORY FORM — TEXAS HISTORICAL COMMISSION (rev. 8-32)
Williamson WM 750
1. County 5.USGS Quad No 3 0 -17 -313 Site No.
City/Rural Georgetown GE
2. Name
#10. Description (cont'd): molding on window facings; octagonal-plan front projecting
ell. Outbuildings include wood frame double garage.
Page 84 of 116
TEXAS HISTORICAL COMMISSION
Properties Documented with the THC Form in 2007 and/or 1984 That Have Not Changed Preservation Priority
County Williamson Local District:Old Town District
Address:1505 Olive St 2016 Survey ID:124608 A
City Georgetown 2016 Preservation Priority:Medium
SECTION 1
Basic Inventory Information
WCAD ID:R047484Property Type:Building Structure Object Site District
Date Recorded 4/21/2016Recorded by:CMEC
EstimatedActual Source:2007 surveyConstruction Date:1915
Bungalow
Other:
Center Passage ShotgunOpen2-roomModified L-plan
Rectangular
T-plan
Four Square
L-plan
Irregular
Plan*
International
Ranch
No Style
Post-war Modern
Commercial Style
Other:
Pueblo Revival
Prairie
Art Deco
Spanish Colonial
Craftsman
Moderne
Gothic Revival
Neo-Classical
Mission
Tudor Revival
Beaux Arts
Monterey
Shingle
Folk Victorian
Renaissance Revival
Romanesque Revival
Colonial Revival
Exotic Revival
Log traditional
Italianate
Eastlake
Greek Revival
Second Empire
Queen Anne
Stylistic Influence(s)*
Note: See additional photo(s) on following page(s)
General Notes: (Notes from 2007 Survey: None)
High Medium
Priority:
Low
Classical Revival
High Medium Low
ID:1142a
ID:750
*Photographs and Preservation Priority have been updated in 2016, and the year built date has also been reviewed. However, the plan and style
data are sourced directly from the 2007 survey.
2007 Survey
1984 Survey
Current/Historic Name None/None
ID:124608 A2016 Survey High Medium Low
Explain:Property retains a relatively high degree of integrity; property is significant and contributes to neighborhood character
Latitude:30.630329 Longitude -97.666771
None Selected
None Selected
Primary (west) elevation; Photo direction: East
Page 85 of 116
TEXAS HISTORICAL COMMISSION
Properties Documented with the THC Form in 2007 and/or 1984 That Have Not Changed Preservation Priority
County Williamson Local District:Old Town District
Address:1505 Olive St 2016 Survey ID:124608 A
City Georgetown 2016 Preservation Priority:Medium
Additional Photos
Oblique of west and south elevations
NortheastPhoto Direction
Page 86 of 116
County Williamson
TEXAS HISTORICAL COMMISSION
Local District:Old Town District
Address:1505 Olive St 2016 Survey ID:124608 B
City Georgetown
HISTORIC RESOURCES SURVEY FORM
2016 Preservation Priority:Low
SECTION 1
Basic Inventory Information
Owner/Address PERKINS, DENNIS A & JANET G, 1505 OLIVE ST, , GEORGETOWN,TX 78626
Latitude:30.630203 Longitude -97.666537
Addition/Subdivision:S4615 - Snyder Addition
WCAD ID:R047484Legal Description (Lot/Block):SNYDER ADDITION, BLOCK 40 PT OF, ACRES .345
Property Type:Building Structure Object Site District
Current Designations:
NR District Yes No)
NHL NR
(Is property contributing?
RTHL OTHM HTC SAL Local:Other
Date Recorded 4/21/2016Recorded by:CMEC
Other:
Historic Use:GovernmentEducationalDomestic
SocialReligiousRecreation/cultureIndustry/processing
DefenseCommerce/tradeAgriculture
Other:
Current Use:GovernmentEducationalDomestic
SocialReligiousRecreation/cultureIndustry/processingHealthcare
DefenseCommerce/tradeAgriculture
Function
EstimatedActual Source:WCADConstruction Date:1945
Builder:Architect:
Healthcare
Note: See additional photo(s) on page 4
Vacant
Vacant
Old Town District
Current/Historic Name:None/None
Primary (west) elevation; Photo direction: East
Page 87 of 116
County Williamson
TEXAS HISTORICAL COMMISSION
Local District:Old Town District
Address:1505 Olive St 2016 Survey ID:124608 B
City Georgetown
HISTORIC RESOURCES SURVEY FORM
2016 Preservation Priority:Low
SECTION 2
Architectural Description
General Architectural Description:
Two-story ancillary building with a lower level garage and upper level living space. It has a rectangular plan, hipped roof,
and an exterior staircase leading to the upper level.
Relocated
Additions, modifications:Garage doors replaced, windows replaced
Stylistic Influence(s)
Queen Anne
Second Empire
Greek Revival
Eastlake
Italianate
Log traditional
Exotic Revival
Colonial Revival
Romanesque Revival
Renaissance Revival
Folk Victorian
Shingle
Monterey
Beaux Arts
Tudor Revival
Mission
Neo-Classical
Gothic Revival
Moderne
Craftsman
Spanish Colonial
Art Deco
Prairie
Pueblo Revival
Other:
Commercial Style
Post-war Modern
No Style
Ranch
International
Gable Hipped Gambrel Shed Flat w/parapet
Structural Details
Roof Form
Mansard Pyramid Other:
Wood shingles Tile Composition shingles Metal Other:
Roof Materials
Wall Materials
Metal
Brick
Wood Siding
Stucco
Siding: Other
Stone
Glass
Wood shingles
Asbestos
Log
Vinyl
Terra Cotta
Other:
Concrete
Fixed Wood sash Double hung Casement Metal sash
Windows
Decorative Screenwork
Other:
Single door Double door With transom With sidelights
Doors (Primary Entrance)
Other:
Plan
Irregular
L-plan
Four Square
T-plan
Rectangular
Modified L-plan 2-room Open ShotgunCenter Passage
Other
Bungalow
Chimneys
Brick StuccoStone Corbelled Caps
Interior Exterior
Other
Specify #0
PORCHES/CANOPIES
Form:Shed Roof Hipped RoofFlat Roof Gabled Roof Inset Other
Support
Suspension rods
Box columns Classical columns
Wood posts (plain)
Spindlework
Wood posts (turned)
Tapered box supports
Masonry pier
Other:
Fabricated metal
Jigsaw trim
Suspension cables
Materials:Metal FabricWood Other:
# of stories:2 PartialNone FullBasement:
Ancillary Buildings
Garage Barn Shed Other:
Landscape/Site Features
Stone
Sidewalks
Wood
Terracing
Concrete
Drives Well/cistern Gardens
Other materials:Brick
Other
Landscape Notes:
Vinyl
Not visible
Not visible
Not visible
None
None
None
Unknown
Asphalt
Page 88 of 116
County Williamson
TEXAS HISTORICAL COMMISSION
Local District:Old Town District
Address:1505 Olive St 2016 Survey ID:124608 B
City Georgetown
HISTORIC RESOURCES SURVEY FORM
2016 Preservation Priority:Low
SECTION 3
Historical Information
Immigration/Settlement
Religion/Spirituality
Commerce
Law/Government
Science/Technology
Communication
Military
Social/Cultural
Education
Natural Resources
Transportation
Exploration
Planning/Development
Other
Health
Applicable National Register (NR) Criteria:
National State LocalLevel of Significance:
Integrity:
Setting Feeling
Location
Association
Design Materials Workmanship
Yes NoIndividually Eligible?Undetermined
Is prior documentation available
for this resource?Yes No Not known
General Notes: (Notes from 2007 Survey: doors clad in corrugated metal)
Associated Historical Context:Agriculture Architecture Arts
C
D
B
A Associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad pattern of our history
Associated with the lives of persons significant in our past
Embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period or method of construction or represents the work of a
master, or possesses high artistic value, or represents a significant and distinguishable entity whose components
lack individual distinctions
Has yielded, or is likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history
Areas of Significance:
Periods of Significance:
Integrity notes:See Section 2
Yes NoWithin Potential NR District?Undetermined
Yes NoIs Property Contributing?Undetermined
High Medium
Priority:
Low Explain:Property lacks significance
Other Info:
Type:HABS Survey Other
Documentation details
2007 survey
Contact Survey Coordinator
History Programs Division, Texas
Historical Commission
512/463-5853
history@thc.state.tx.us
Questions?
1984 ID:Not Recorded2007 ID:1142b
2007 Survey Priority:Medium 1984 Survey Priority:Not Recorded
Page 89 of 116
County Williamson
TEXAS HISTORICAL COMMISSION
Local District:Old Town District
Address:1505 Olive St 2016 Survey ID:124608 B
City Georgetown
HISTORIC RESOURCES SURVEY FORM
2016 Preservation Priority:Low
Additional Photos
Primary (west) elevation
SouthPhoto Direction
Page 90 of 116
Page 91 of 116
Page 92 of 116
Maxwell’s Carport
2020-49-COA
Historic & Architectural Review Commission
October 8, 2020
1Page 93 of 116
Item Under Consideration
2020-49-COA –Maxwell’s Garage
Public Hearing and Possible Action on a request for a Certificate of Appropriateness (COA)for
a 4'-0"setback modification to the required 6'side setback to allow a carport structure 2'-0"
from the side (south)property line and an addition that creates a new,or adds to an existing
street-facing façade at the property located at 1505 Olive Street,bearing the legal description
0.345 acres,being part of Block 40,Snyder Addition.
2Page 94 of 116
Item Under Consideration
HARC:
•An addition that creates a new, or adds to an existing street-facing façade
•Setback modification
3Page 95 of 116
Item Under Consideration
4Page 96 of 116
Annie Purl
Elementary
5Page 97 of 116
Current Context
6Page 98 of 116
c. 1934 Aerial Photo –SU Special Collections
7Page 99 of 116
c. 1934 Aerial Photo –SU Special Collections
8Page 100 of 116
1964 Aerial Photo
9Page 101 of 116
1974 Aerial Photo
10Page 102 of 116
1984 HRS Photo
11Page 103 of 116
Maxwell’s Carport –Proposed Location
12Page 104 of 116
Maxwell’s Carport –Proposed Location
13Page 105 of 116
Maxwell’s Carport –Proposed Design
14Page 106 of 116
Maxwell’s Carport –Proposed Design
15Page 107 of 116
Maxwell’s Carport –Proposed Materials
16Page 108 of 116
Maxwell’s Carport –Proposed Siding
17Page 109 of 116
Current Context
18Page 110 of 116
Approval Criteria –UDC Section 3.13.030
Criteria Staff’s Finding
1. The application is complete and the information contained within the application is correct and
sufficient enough to allow adequate review and final action;Complies
2. Compliance with any design standards of this Code;Partially
Complies
3. Compliance with the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties to
the most extent practicable;Complies
4. Compliance with the adopted Downtown and Old Town Design Guidelines, as may be amended from
time to time, specific to the applicable Historic Overlay District;
Partially
Complies
5. The general historic, cultural, and architectural integrity of the building, structure or site is preserved;Complies
6. New buildings or additions are designed to be compatible with surrounding properties in the
applicable historic overlay district;Complies
7. The overall character of the applicable historic overlay district is protected; and Complies
8. The Master Sign Plan is in keeping with the adopted Downtown and Old Town Design Guidelines and
character of the historic overlay district.N/A 19Page 111 of 116
Setback Approval Criteria –UDC Section 3.13.030
Criteria Staff’s Finding
a. Whether the proposed setback encroachment is solely a matter of convenience;Complies
b. Whether there is adequate room on the site to allow the proposed addition or new structure without
encroaching into the setback;Complies
c. Whether the proposed setback is compatible and in context within the block in which the subject
property is located;Complies
d. Whether the proposed addition or new structure will be set closer to the street than other units
within the block;Complies
e. Whether the proposed structure is replacing a structure removed within the past year;N/A
f. Whether the proposed structure will replace a structure that previously existed with relatively the
same footprint and encroachment as proposed;N/A
20Page 112 of 116
Setback Approval Criteria –UDC Section 3.13.030.D.2
Criteria Staff’s Finding
g. If the proposed encroachment is for a structure that is replacing another structure, whether the
proposed structure is significantly larger than the original;N/A
h. If the proposed encroachment is for an addition, the scale of the addition compared to the original
house;Complies
i. The size of the proposed structure compared to similar structures within the same block;Complies
j. Whether the proposed addition or new structure will negatively impact adjoining properties, including
limiting their ability to maintain existing buildings;Complies
k. Whether there is adequate space for maintenance of the proposed addition or new structure and/or
any adjacent structures; and/or Complies
l. Whether the encroachment would enable existing large trees or significant features of the lot to be
preserved.N/A
21Page 113 of 116
Public Notification
•One (1) sign posted
•34 letters mailed
•No comments received
22Page 114 of 116
Recommendation
Staff recommends Approval of the request for the carport addition and
setback modification.
23Page 115 of 116
HARC Motion –2020-49-COA
•Approve (as presented by the applicant)
•Deny (as presented by the applicant)
•Approve with conditions
•Postpone
24Page 116 of 116